HOW TO ENJOY FLYING THE FIAT C.R.42 'FALCO'

INTRODUCTION.

The Fiat C.R.42 was designed as an air superiority fighter. Consequently it is powerful, unstable and responsive. It is exciting to fly, but not easy to fly unless graduating from another high powered unstable fighter biplane. It requires precise finger tip control of elevators and ailerons. Rudder must be used cautiously on the ground, especially after landing. Light weight gives the C.R.42 an exceptional rate of climb. Biplane structural integrity and stout fixed landing gear make it exceptionally strong, but slow. The C.R.42 has no flaps and so we must acquire the skills needed to fly a side slipped head out approach. The Fiat A.74 engine is much more fragile than the aeroplane and avoiding overboost is a major concern since our engine has no automated overboost protection. This simulation is designed to be run with all realism maximised (all sliders full right).

We now have the opportunity to inhabit a very detailed visual and dynamic model of six different variants of the Fiat C.R.42. There is much to study and learn. I recommend that you read the supplied history of the Fiat C.R.42, (also in this FALCO_COMMON folder), before reading or using this tutorial. To make best use of this simulation opportunity we need to understand how this aeroplane was used in real life, where from, where to, in which altitude bands, why, and in what weather. Those issues are addressed in the supplied history and not in this tutorial. We urge you to learn the relevant skills below rather than relying on video game cheat modes that the real pilot could not invoke. Learning to fly real mission profiles, using real doctrines, will prove more interesting than random sorties and make believe procedures.

The illustrations within this tutorial each relate to a specific parallax compliance skill to be learned.

SEARCHING and THREADING.

If you have an entire day to spare by all means read this tutorial from start to finish once, but it is optimised for on screen key word and key phrase searching over months of self training in individual skills. An on screen search (Edit / find next) for UPPER CASE headings will take you to relevant section headings, and other key references within the body of text. When searching and 'threading' use the singular (e.g. brake) and all occurrences of the plural (brakes) will also be disclosed. Use present tense (trim) so that other tenses ('should be trimmed') are disclosed. There are for instance more than one hundred occurrences of 'trim' in this tutorial and in MSIE each will be highlighted in yellow if we choose 'trim' as the subject of a 'find'. We can click 'find next' and jump from one to the next or we can read / scroll through the text with each reference to 'trim' highlighted if that is the 'topic' we want to thread for study today. To aid such threading 'logical synonyms' are sometimes present in brackets <throttle (boost)>. I realise that detracts from readability, but this is a skills training aid, not a book. Searching for the phrase (train to) will disclose suggested / necessary specific skill training.

Bold text provides key information is associated with refresher training when we return to flying the Falco after a period flying less demanding aircraft. Underlined text relates to advanced software / hardware operation of MSFS during Falco simulation. Either may then be underlined and / or italicised for additional emphasis.

PRINTING.

The best way to use this tutorial is on screen and searchable, but to facilitate printing this tutorial is formatted into 'A4 pages'. Because the illustrations in this tutorial display parallax compliance it is important that they are not 'squashed to fit' by browsers or printer utilities. This tutorial has some 'white spaces' to ensure that relevant illustrations are not split across printed A4 pages. When viewed on screen, in different web browsers, some illustrations may be displaced downwards to the next 'page', or may not appear at all, depending on the browser used, current browser window aspect ratio and zoom. Increasing relative window size to full screen, (more like an A4 page in landscape format), and / or reducing browser zoom, 'should' allow the illustration to appear in the correct place on screen. The named 'missing' illustration can be viewed directly within the 'read before flight' folder, within the FALCO_COMMON folder if all else fails.

COCKPIT DRILLS.

Before reading on please start up MSFS and sit in the Fiat C.R.42 Falco cockpit. Get ready to use you mouse to 'mouseover' each cockpit system to read tooltips and to experiment with mouse operation of the relevant system if operable. Discover which are operable. Some can be clicked, but others must be dragged. Using your hat switch practice panning and scrolling. Using the keyboard practice zooming out and in to look closely at objects of interest without altering your eyepoint. Think about the difference between head position (eyepoint) and direction of view (eyeline). Note that in a pure 3D environment altering ZOOM never alters object placement, parallax or perspective, inside or outside the aeroplane. That is essential to head up flight simulation.

The simulation must be 'unpaused' and so on the ground with parking brake applied is best. If you become disoriented pressing the keyboard space bar will place your head against the parallax compliance headrest, looking through the HUD down the sight line, providing real world parallax compliance at any FS zoom factor in any size and shape of MSFS window.

Now is the time to adjust your window size and zoom factor until all frequently used gauges are on screen after pressing the space bar. Micro manage zoom using <SHIFT +> and <SHIFT ->. Because this aircraft provides a pure 3D environment we cannot destroy parallax compliance, we can only make poor personal window aspect ratio choices, in combination with poor zoom choices, which provide an inadequate vertical or lateral Field of View (FoV), else inadequate scenery resolution for target identification. Before flight simulation *we* must configure window aspect ratio and zoom, aeroplane by aeroplane, each time we fly.

*Remember the wider the simulation window you use the worse your field of view (FoV) will be*

Many flight simulation enthusiasts do not understand the mathematics of cinematic projection and suffer from the awful misconception that a wider window will provide a wider FoV. The exact opposite is true! We can improve our FoV by using a narrower window, or by using a lower magnification (camera zoom). Since we each have different eyesight, and use different screen resolutions, on screens of differing aspect ratio, there is *no universally correct mix of window width, depth and zoom* in VC (real 3D simulation) mode. The days when flight simulation developers could decide the zoom each consumer should use have gone forever. There is no single correct value at which any product 'works best'.

Configuring your display device for your eyesight and to deliver the FoV you deem appropriate, retaining adequate scenery Level of Detail (LOD), is always the responsibility of each consumer. Developers have no idea what resolution you use, or what window aspect ratio and zoom at that resolution your eyesight can cope with, and the pretence that we might is just silly. You must zoom so that you can read the gauges and then you must make your 3D flight simulation window *narrow enough to increase projected FoV* until the default parallax compliance window contains all the gauges of interest and all necessary external scenery simultaneously. This may create a feedback loop which you must resolve by iteration of window width and zoom until you can read the gauges and all the frequently used gauges are visible simultaneously inside the primary simulation window. Whether that is a simple or an extended process depends on your personal hardware and your personal eyesight.

If you have never understood the mathematics of projection and think that a wider window delivers wider FoV it is essential that you debunk your own terrible misconception now. Make a wide window and note how much of the cockpit you can see. Now make a window half that width and the same height. The narrow window gives you a greater FoV in all directions at constant ZOOM. Using a desk top flight simulator proficiently isn't only about learning aviation skills!

What flight simulation enthusiasts call a 'panel' or a 'VC' is in reality the 'simulation control interface'. The developer must ensure that it works correctly, is produced to scale, and is parallax compliant, but it is no longer the developer's job to configure the simulation control interface to match your hardware. Screen aspect ratios and resolutions now differ so much that we cannot. Flight simulation enthusiasts who do not configure each aeroplane to match their eyesight, then correcting FoV with variable window width and variable zoom, are doomed to a miserable time scrolling, panning and zooming to see things that would be in plain view if they had bothered to configure their simulator control interface correctly for use of that aeroplane before flight.!

MSFS versions after FS98 are not DOS applications intended to run 'full screen'. They are 'Windows' application designed to run in a window which we are each required to configure carefully to control simulation FoV. Lazy consumer choices just cause inadequate consumer FoV during simulation. This is a head up combat mission simulation. During head up combat missions we need to identify small objects within the scenery as early as possible. That simulation requirement is not compatible with low consumer ZOOM values which inhibit LOD. Simulating head up combat doctrines requires very careful consumer trade off between adequate ZOOM = LOD and adequate FoV. As the simulation progresses we may need to vary both LOD and FoV to achieve specific mission objectives. That is only possible, without parallax distortion, within a pure 3D environment.

Provided you set and retain the specific zoom choice you need, to create the FoV you need to operate this aeroplane, pressing the spacebar will restore your default FoV choice for this aeroplane each time you press the spacebar during this FS session. We must treat setting up that personal ZOOM versus FoV choice for each different VC as one of our cockpit drills before flight (ideally before engine start). FS9 will otherwise default to ZOOM = 1.0 which will be a poor choice for most consumers. FSX will default to a developer coded variable which will also be a poor choice for most consumers. Take the time to micro manage your default FoV before flight or your sortie will require excessive panning and scrolling. Practice re-imposing your choice of default FoV with the spacebar after varying eyeline with the hat switch and eyepoint with the keyboard.

Remember any carefully designed VC contains every realistic 2D panel that could ever be created for that aeroplane. During 3D simulation each consumer chooses from an infinite range of possible 2D panels, none of which are ever out of scale with the rest of the simulation, and therefore never block sight lines that should not be blocked, and which unlike 2D panels retain parallax compliance at every possible ZOOM and within every possible FOV, down every possible eyeline, from every possible eyepoint, on any hardware. During 3D simulation we inhabit a whole aeroplane using all of its real head up parallax compliance cues. This is essential to combat simulation.

As you read on test whether assigned joystick buttons function as explained. If not you may need to alter assignments, else use the keyboard. Please also open relevant MSFS menu options to become familiar with control of Fiat C.R 42 systems by that alternate means.

Having taken the time to evaluate the precise ZOOM factor and window aspect ratio you need to ensure that all the gauges you need frequently are always visible by default (after pressing the space bar), retain that aspect ratio, but now take the time to zoom to higher magnification, then pan and scroll around the simulation control interface (using your hat switch) to admire the detail of the modelling and so that you can study all the real gauges and any real world cockpit labels associated with them.

FUEL SELECTION, TRIMMING and CUT OFF.

Most versions of the Fiat C.R.42 have two fuel tanks with a combined maximum capacity of 350 Litres containing 362 Kilogrammes of leaded 87 Octane AVGAS. Both are in the fuselage arranged fore and aft. The smaller (ausiliari) tank was treated as the reserve tank and was used last. The 'Egeo' version of the C.R.42 was a long range interceptor with an additional 55 Litre internal auxiliary tank containing (only) an extra 42 Kg of leaded AVGAS. The real fuel system was complicated, as was doctrine for tank selection, especially within the three tank 'Egeo' version, and so we decided to automate tank selection within this flight simulation release

Unusually even two tank versions of the C.R.42 have three master fuel cocks. The primary yellow-brown FUEL COCK (fermo motore) to turn fuel supply to the engine on or off is down and behind the elevator trim controls, behind the left side console. This is the only working fuel cock in this simulation. This must be ON within MSFS, but will as usual be turned on during automated starting using 'CTRL+E' if not selected manually.

The two FUEL TANK SELECTOR quadrants (serbatoio carburante) are both on the left side wall. Each has a red lever. One is above the trim controls and the other almost hidden above the mixture lever. The different options are fully illustrated. Each contains a further fuel cock as well as up to three tank selections. In MSFS these levers are not functional. The flight dynamics will select the appropriate tank in sequence, whether the aircraft in question has two or three tanks, and whether we add fuel to some or all before flight. The three tank version (Falco Egeo) originally had fuel restrictions if bombs were loaded after bomb pylons were added by way of field modification, but we have resolved that by not adding bomb pylons to that version within MSFS.

As in real life the FUEL GUAGE is singular and is top right of the right side cockpit console, forward from the clock. In MSFS we can use its tooltip to determine precise % total fuel remaining. It is not a glass gauge with a needle. It has a revolving mechanical pointer and only fractional total contents indication. Half fuel about 11.5% more fuel in the three tank 'Egeo'.

In real life fuel trim seems to have had little influence on spin propensity or ease of spin recovery. Fuel trimming, and tank sequencing are anyway conducted automatically by the flight dynamics during this simulation due to the complexity and inaccessibility of the multiple fuel feed selectors.

Although the Falco was designed without external weapon capability, many late deliveries, (all with only two fuel tanks), were manufactured with an external stores pylon under the V of the wing struts on each side, (abeam CoG), and some had similar stores pylons retrofitted in the field. When bombs were carried on those pylons the authorised take off weight of each C.R.42 variant was simply increased accordingly. All Falco sorties normally depart the ramp with maximum fuel for that version, but it is permissible to depart with adequate fuel distributed in any tank combination, in any version.

FUEL AUTO MIXTURE.

The Fiat A.74 engine was a semi automated engine. It had automixture, configured to run autorich for continuous additional cooling, especially of the rear row of cylinders. Aeroplanes which change altitude quickly, and which do not have a dedicated flight engineer, need automixture. The engine did have a manual mixture reversion capability, but manual control of mixture by pilot flying was rare outside of extreme range ferry sorties, and unwise in hot or warm air. There are only two positions of the brown mixture lever that are useful in this simulation. Full forward to starve the engine of fuel during engine shut down, or aft of that cut off position to invoke manufacturer's autorich mixture. In this Italian cockpit the mixture lever has reverse motion to British and American mixture levers. The brown lever on the left throttle console functions as the mixture cut off lever within MSFS. This simulation overrides inappropriate mixture control choices made by consumers within the MSFS realism menu.

ENGINE SHUT DOWN.

After a prior short period of idling, we turn OFF everything that is battery powered, then the engine is always shut down by pushing the brown MIXTURE lever (correttore quota) full forward to the fuel cut off position causing a weak cut. The primary FUEL COCK (fermo motore) is then moved to OFF. The battery itself is then disconnected.

THROTTLE

The throttle (gas) lever is the black lever next to the mixture lever. This is an Italian aeroplane so throttle motion is opposite to American and British practice. Full throttle is full aft.

PARKING BRAKE.

The parking brake is toggled using the aluminium coloured lever on the side of the joystick . In two versions of the C.R.42 a red bomb release lever is also present. Pneumatic status of the air brakes is depicted on the two gauges partially hidden behind the brake lever. Take time now to ensure that you can differentiate brakes ON from brakes OFF if you inhibit the unrealistic default text message.

ENGINE START UP.

Manual engine starting requires us to;

1. apply the parking brake, (mouse click lever) – monitor pneumatic indicators

2. fuel cock ON, (mouse click)

3. move the RPM (GIRI) lever to MAX = 2520, (keyboard or mouse drag)

4. 'crack' the throttle open, (desktop joystick)

5. prime the engine with three shots of fuel using the priming pump, (iniettore pneumatico), down by right thigh - (use mouse)

6. fully open cowl flaps (keyboard or mouse)

7. connect the battery with master switch (mouse click)

8. turn the magneto switch (far left of main panel) to BOTH (1-2 with mouse)

9. shout 'clear prop' loudly in the appropriate language

10. turn (not pull) the blue compressed air valve next to the priming pump to turn the engine over (with mouse)

After start we check that oil pressure (O = Olio) is about 5 Kg/cm^2 and stable, with the throttle closed, and that oil temperature is modest and rising (left panel), Fuel pressure should be more than 2 Kg/Cm^2. Check that both pressures rise with small throttle movement (small retardation in an Italian aeroplane). Mag drop can be tested (use the keyboard), but will always be minimal and within parameters in MSFS. We only test our lights and the reflector sight after the engine is running and stable and able to charge the battery.

 COWL FLAPS.

The cowl flaps are operated using the black lever (Comando Alette) to the far left of the left side console. Down is full open and up is fully closed. This system is functional and can be mouse dragged, but is easier to control with the keyboard. Usage seems to have been binary and either full open, (at all times on ground and with high power at low IAS in flight), else fully closed. Consequently the lever has quite limited motion.

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS.

The battery connect/disconnect (electrical master) switch is the foremost red switch on the right sidewall electrical panel. There is no ammeter and no voltmeter in a Falco. Battery charge and alternator status are evaluated via external testing by our ground crew only between flights. Most C.R.42s had neither a radio nor any form of wireless navigation. The battery was not worked hard and alternator failure was of little consequence below the freezing level. Pitot heat (rear red switch right side wall electrical panel ) required battery power in the event of alternator failure as did the very rarely used lights. The rare experimental version which we designate C.R.42CNSL in this release had twin searchlights and needed a windmill generator mounted over the top wing to provide additional power generation.

HUD = REFLECTOR SIGHT.

Note that the reflector sight on / off switch is located on the electrical systems panel on the right sidewall The HUD won't work unless it is switched on!

The Head Up Display Weapon Aiming System (HUDWAS = reflector sight) is tested after engine start, but is then turned off to conserve battery power until we contemplate combat. We need enough juice in the battery to power up the sight even if the alternator has failed. With no ammeter and no voltmeter available alternator failure is very difficult to detect, but in MSFS this will not happen unless you configure electrical failures in the MSFS failures menu. The HUDWAS is normally turned off after egress. Use of the San Giorgio Type B reflector sight is explained later.

LIGHTS.

All light switches are also on the right side wall electrical panel. NAV lights should be OFF in enemy airspace or anywhere that enemy air activity is suspected. The semi experimental variety of C.R.42CN, (which we designate C.R.42CNSL in this flight simulation release), had fixed underwing search lights. These were intended to allow positive identification of targets prior to attack. These have an additional red switch on its own panel behind the main electrical panel. Please load the C.R.42CNSL now and locate the searchlight switch. Note the overwing windmill generator. Attempts to use these lights for target illumination and identification only disclosed the presence of the night fighter prematurely making it an easy target for tail gunners and the concept was quickly abandoned. The standard production C.R.42CN (Cacchia Notturna = Night Fighter) was not encumbered by useless searchlights and so does not have the relevant generator or switch .

Note that the C.R.42 is so primitive that no version has landing lights of any kind, despite three versions being explicitly intended for night flying. Flying a C.R.42 'night fighter' or 'night strike' variant was only possible in lovely weather with no cloud to diminish illumination from a moon which was nearly full. The night flying versions were functionally useless for most of each month unless used for other duties (see C.R.42LW).

PNEUMATIC SYSTEMS.

The Falco has powerful (compared to weight) pneumatic (air) brakes. The gear is fixed and there are no flaps. The engine starter is also pneumatic. The Falco has no hydraulic systems.

OXYGEN SYSTEM.

The Falco was designed for prolonged cruising at 5000M (FL164), but in practice normally cruised at 7500M (FL250) when assigned sweep, strike or top cover missions (see history and below) . The oxygen (ossigeno) regulator and status indicator gauge (red needle) are on the right side console. During simulation oxygen remaining will diminish throughout the sortie. Just before the indicator reaches the red zone we must descend and continue our return to base only below 3000M QNH. This greatly diminishes the boost we can apply to the engine (see later).

OIL CONTENTS, TEMPERATURE and COOLER SHUTTERS.

The blue lever to the left of the carb heat lever is the manual oil cooler shutter control (radiatore olio). In MSFS it will not move, and compliant variable cooling is automated. We can nevertheless overheat the Olio by use of excessive RPM (GIRI), with inadequate cooling drag (IAS) and inadequate cowl flap (comando alette) opening.

The Falco has a CHT (temperatura) gauge down on the right side console , and an associated warning light above the fuel (B = Benzina) pressure gauge. However the Fiat A.74 engine is calibrated to run autorich and will only suffer excessive CHT due to pilot error when pressione is not limited, and cowl flaps are not operated, in accordance with the supplied handling notes explained in detail below. Within MSFS we have an overboost light to warn us that we are overboosting the engine with excess pressione (see later). Oil (O = Olio) temperature will only become excessive due to pilot error arising from excessive GIRI not limited in accordance with the supplied handling notes. There is no warning light associated with over revving the engine. That pilot error just causes the oil to overheat and burn away, leading to oil exhaustion before fuel exhaustion (which instead depends mostly on pressione applied).

GYROSCOPIC VACUUM (SUCTION) SYSTEMS.

Even when a C.R.42 has vacuum driven systems it has no suction gauge. Such systems will not fail in MSFS unless configured to do so via the failures menu.

MAGNETIC COMPARISON COMPASS.

The lower barrel of the magnetic comparison compass, (low centre of panel), displays self assigned heading, (potentially flight plan track in nil wind). Mouse hot spots are at either end of the lower barrel for that purpose. Upper barrel displays current magnetic heading (but only at zero turn rate). This is very useful when climbing since the horizon is not normally visible if we are 'head in' and 'goggles up'. During climb we will experience considerable 'torque roll' which must be countered to sustain self assigned heading (see later).

GYRO COMPASS

This primitive aeroplane has none. All turns from heading A to heading B are made using the turn rate gauge and the clock. The magnetic comparison compass is useless when turning.

WEATHER BRIEFING - NO OAT GUAGE!

Many so called 'combat flight simulators' have very poor weather models and do not allow us to learn how to cope with variable weather. Variable cloud base and variable visibility are major factors in air combat. Ice is a major factor in vintage era air combat. 'Combat flight simulators' do a poor job of simulating combat sorties in the ETO in winter.

Pilots need to evaluate their ability to achieve compliance with any navigation or attack doctrine in any weather. Indeed one of the most useful benefits of flight simulators is that we can set up a training session which just challenges our current level of competence, by variation of the weather alone, whilst we slowly learn to achieve compliance with all doctrines in worse visibility and with a lower cloud base, and with a lower freezing level. In reality it makes no difference whether a doctrine we must learn to comply with is a combat doctrine.

In common with many other manufacturers at this date Fiat failed to provide the Falco pilot with an Outside Air Temperature (OAT) gauge. In the vintage phase of aviation history we must *calculate* where the freezing level is before flight. The real Falco pilot obtained this information in a weather briefing. We need a weather briefing too. This is obtained by installing freeware such as FSMETAR, (use Google to find it), which we must use to determine surface temperature on our airfield before flight. The surface temperature is the number after the current visibility (or CAVOK). It is in Celsius.

The freezing level is,

(surface temperature divided by 2) thousand feet higher than our airfield.

If the surface temperature is +11C and our airfield is 2000 feet above sea level then the freezing level is at an altitude of;

2000 + (1000 * 11 / 2) = 7500 feet. To convert feet to metres we divide by 3.28.

The freezing level is at (about) 2300M today. This primitive aircraft has no anti ice and no de-icing systems other than pitot heat and carb heat. We must not enter cloud *or precipitation* above the freezing level for more than a few seconds. We 'may' decide to cruise lower than the freezing level today, but that depends on how much cloud and rain or snow is above the freezing level today. If there is not enough cloud or precipitation above the freezing level to preclude parallax compliant VFR navigation, then the correct cruising altitude is 7500M (clear of cloud) , well above the freezing level. We avoid icing conditions while above the freezing level. Frostbite is a major problem however.

COCKPIT HEATING.

Present, but inadequate to prevent frostbite in the ETO between November and March at normal operating altitudes when wearing Regia Aeronautica flying kit.

PITOT HEAT.

We do have PITOT HEAT (rear red switch right sidewall panel) which we must turn ON above the calculated freezing level. To conserve battery power it should otherwise be OFF. There is a yellow warning light below the switch to indicate that we are draining power. This single switch heats both pitot tubes (and the static vents) to prevent ice accumulation in the tubes or vents which will cause ASI and VSI failure. Pitot heat should be OFF below the freezing level to preserve battery life in case of alternator failure which was more common in the vintage era of aviation history. Later models of the C.R.42 have a single ASI and the pitot tube moves to the right side of the cockpit.

SCREW ANTI ICE.

The Falco was designed to cruise most efficiently, clear of cloud *and precipitation*), at 5000M, (FL164), but in practice that was far too low and so it normally cruised at 7500M (FL250). We should not cruise higher, or lower, during a combat sortie unless we must do so to avoid an icing layer in (solid or scattered) cloud, or precipitation.

Most Falcos had no de-icing system other than pitot heat and carb heat. However some produced for the Luftwaffe 1943-45 had airscrew anti ice heating. They still had no airframe anti ice or de-ice capability. The C.R.42LW in this release is a 1944 model without screw anti ice. We must not attempt climb or descent through cloud with OAT below zero Celsius in any C.R.42. Nor may we dodge continuously in and out of clouds above the freezing level during cruise. Too much ice will slowly accumulate on the airframe. We can (and should) cruise above the freezing level provided we remain clear of cloud *and all precipitation falling from cloud*.

For realistic simulation make sure you have icing (and turbulence) turned on in your (user defined) weather menu. Having low inertia and being deliberately unstable the Falco is unpleasant to fly in turbulence, but has no structural IAS restrictions.

CARB HEAT CONTROL.

The carb air heat control (aria calda carb) is the black lever with a C on top ahead of the elevator trim on the left side console. Forward = COLD. We clear any carb ice by using carb heat before take off. We do not deploy carb heat, (reducing power), during take off, or during final approach when we may need RATED power to go around.

We can ignore carb heat altogether when flying the Falco in MSFS, but if we decide to apply it manually it should be used only when OAT is between 0 Celsius and +7 Celsius and pressione is below 0.7 C. We must calculate likely OAT by reference to our altitude and the calculated freezing level as above. Air temperature rises by 2 degrees Celsius for every thousand feet we descend below the freezing level today. Carb ice maximises in the 3500 feet (1000 metre) band *below* the freezing level.

Carb heat should *not* be applied continuously. It should be applied periodically and only whenever OAT is slightly positive and the engine is throttled below 0.7 C. We need carb heat most during the arrival and approach phases as we reduce pressione and descend into air warm enough to contain enough moisture to be a (major) problem.

Since the C.R 42 has no OAT gauge we must obtain a weather briefing as above to determine whether the air we encounter as we taxi out, and later during the arrival and approach phases, will be between 0 Celsius and +7 Celsius. That is the danger range for carb ice in this engine. Outside cloud and fog freezing air contains little moisture which can turn to ice. We must avoid freezing cloud and fog for other reasons anyway.

CONTOLLABLE PITCH REVERSION.

The lever next to the oil cooler lever is the manual pitch reversion lever to disconnect the airscrew constant speed unit and the associated GIRI lever. Since MSFS has no support for controllable pitch airscrews this real, but optional airscrew control mode is inoperable. C/p screws must not be confused with v/p screws or c/s screws. MSFS has support only for v/p and c/s screws. The Hamilton Standard screw on the A.74 engine is a true constant speed screw with an unsupported reversion mode, not a controllable pitch screw being misrepresented as a constant speed screw.

RUDDER TRIM, ELEVATOR TRIM WHEEL and STATUS indicator.

The elevator trim wheel and indicator are on the left side console behind the engine controls. I strongly encourage you to use the keyboard to control both elevator and rudder trim in any single crew vintage era cockpit. The Falco is not an F-16. The Falco does not have HOTAS technology.

In real life the Falco lacked rudder trim. MSFS users who have rudder pedals will cope, but those who use other means to control rudder status would not. This MSFS release therefore has RUDDER TRIM. There is no visual control and no status indicator. Those of you who have no rudder pedals will need to apply rudder trim. Those of you who have pedals can simply ignore its presence and it will remain neutral.

I strongly recommend that you reject the default Microsoft rudder trim two key keyboard input and substitute a single key for each direction of rudder trim so that you can rudder trim single handed. If you have no rudder pedals simply apply the rudder trim which prevents yaw as C and GIRI and IAS vary. Trim until you no longer need to make a manual input to prevent yaw. Use the twin barrel magnetic comparison compass to monitor course deviation, and the turn rate (S-D) gauge to eliminate yaw with pedals or (fake) trim.

AIRSPEED INDICATORS.

Note the plural. The Falco was deemed to need an ASI for each upper wing and each outer strut has its own pitot tube. Both are heated by application of a single switch. Some earlier Italian biplanes had generated nasty flick to autorotation characteristics when stalled at high G in turns. One wing stalled before the other. In practice this was never a problem in the Falco, quite the opposite in fact. However the location of the two ASIs and the altimeter drive how we achieve open cockpit head out parallax compliance (see below). Since this system was not necessary it was included on only the Falco and Egeo, the next four versions having an artificial horizon in place of the second ASI.

The other non combat systems and gauges are more or less self explanatory. Manifold pressure (Pressione) is measured in kilogrammes per square centimetre abbreviated C. Engine RPM = GIRI. Vertical Speed Increment (VSI) is measured in metres per second, altitude in kilometres on the altimeter, and profile drag on each wing in KmIAS on each ASI.

Now we need to examine the combat systems by mouseover and by mouse click, still testing whether our joystick buttons work as we expect or whether we need to change assignments.

AMMUNITION REMAINING INDICATORS.

These are a prominent feature of Italian combat aircraft. There is one for each gun (magazine) and they are prominently mounted on the main panel. The same counters with a fixed maximum value were used in all relevant Italian aircraft. They do work in MSFS and our armourer will always load 500 rounds for each weapon before flight.

GUN SYSTEM COCKING, ARMING and FIRING.

In real life guns must;

a) have a round in the chamber

b) the safety catch must be off

c) the trigger must be activated

before they will fire.

Automatic weapons guns must in addition have a supply of rounds that will be moved into the chamber as the prior cartridge case is ejected. Combat aircraft do not taxi and fly around with their weapon systems armed. All the safety switches (sicura armi) are set to 'weapons safe' = 'sicura'. Prior to positive target identification, none of the triggers which the manufacturer of the aeroplane added to the cockpit is mechanically, or electronically, connected to any weapon system. Each weapon system is connected to a trigger, only after the aircraft captain,

1) decides that a legitimate target has been positively identified

2) evaluates that target as soft or hard

3) decides whether to suppress or destroy that target

4) arms the compliant system of interest (connects it to a trigger)

5) complies with all other rules of engagement

The weapon safe switch (secura / armi) connects and disconnects the relevant 'trigger mechanism'. The Falco has a single red gun trigger on top of the joystick; even when the guns are of different calibres in early production models. To fire guns in MSFS we depress the 'O' key or a desktop joystick button mapped to the 'O' (strobe) key. We connect both guns to the singular trigger , using the red gun safety switches on the right side console. Forward position of red arming switch = weapon armed. Poor design means that it is very hard to tell visually whether the weapons are armed. In MSFS we can use the tool tip.

High air is cold air. In a Falco we normally cruise above 7000M. Cold metal collects condensation which later freezes and sticks metal parts together. Vintage era leather or canvas ammunition belts freeze hard and cease to be supple. Frozen ammunition belts do not want to 'flow' through the chamber. The Falco has no gun or magazine heaters. We must either waste ammunition by firing the guns every so often to keep them unfrozen, or we must operate their parts manually every so often to stop various things freezing solid. Every so often we must work the blue gun cocking handle next to the arming switches on the gun arming panel (right side console) to move the belts through the breaches. We must also perform that action in the attack pattern.

Just before we level at 1000M QFE in the attack pattern we turn the blue cocking handle several times to ensure free flow of the ammunition belts before we attack. If the cocking handle will move and the belts have not frozen we proceed to arm the guns, (connect them to their trigger). We do this just before we level at 1000M QFE to allow everything to thaw for as long as possible in our prolonged descent from 7500M QNH (see later).

All weapon systems that were armed must be made safe immediately after egress, and in addition a 'weapons safe' check must be made during the arrival phase and before entering the visual circuit pattern to land. In MSFS we not only move all arming switches to safe before we recross our own FLOT, we must also remove the weight of any bombs dropped during the simulated attack. This fits naturally within the 'weapons safe' checks that happen in real life immediately after we have concluded target egress. We will study egress and arrival phase procedures much later in this tutorial.

Use your mouse to discover where the gun arming switches are, and to operate them within the gun arming panel, on the right side console. Use your mouse to turn the blue cocking handle several times to ensure free flow of both ammunition belts.

Note that poor vintage era safety design allowed the gun cocking handle to be identical to the pneumatic engine starter. They are differentiated only by alignment. We always carry out a weapons safe check as the first thing we do before we begin our pre flight check walk around of the aircraft and we never clamber into the cockpit without checking again that the guns are disarmed.

Our clock is very inconveniently positioned on the right side console. C.R.42 pilots ordinarily used pilot chronometers with a stop watch function and if we have access to a suitable wrist watch we should do the same. If not we must use the back up chronometer for timing of planned course changes.

BOMB LOADING, ARMING and RELEASING.

Please select and sit in the cockpit of a C.R.42AS before reading on. Versions of the C.R.42 which have a single store pylon under the outer strut bracing point of each wing have two additional cockpit controls. Above the left side console is a large bomb arming quadrant (sicura bombe) with two trailing Bowden cables linked to the lock of the pylon release pins. Like the guns there is no option for asymmetric arming. Due to poor design, unlike the gun arming switches, this weapons safe lever uses full forward as the safe position until we positively identify an enemy target that we intend to destroy using all bombs at the same time. When that condition is met we move the bomb arming lever aft. The fusing pin will not disengage from the bomb propeller until the bomb leaves the pylon. This bomb safe lever disconnects the bomb release lever from the release pins.

The bomb release lever is the new red lever on the joystick.

Within MSFS things are a little different. Within MSFS the bomb release lever is also used to load the bombs visually and to add their drag. Within MSFS the bomb arming lever will move and we can comply with the real doctrine doctrine, but it will not disable use of the bomb release lever. Before we taxi we load bombs with the lever. As we egress from the target we attacked using complaint high angle doctrine (see later) we use the bomb release lever to remove the bombs visually and to remove their drag. As explained later we use the Pause (P) key (or video) to examine our fire control solution at moment of bomb release.

The keyboard spoiler key (/) can be used to load and 'unload' the drag (and thus visibility) of bombs instead.

Note that late versions of the C.R.42 designed explicitly to perform the light strike mission have an artificial horizon to promote compliance with high angle bomb delivery doctrine (see later). The only ASI in late model C.R.42s is tucked away in a dark corner and this influences which side of the cockpit we usually lean out of during head out operation of the late model C.R.42s. Note that aeroplanes which fly (default) left hand visual circuits 'head in' need the ASI top left, while those that are flown 'head out' and 'goggles down' need the ASI bottom right. We will need to fly the C.R.42 'head out and goggles down' a great deal, because the view of the outside world from inside the cockpit is miserably poor just like the real thing.

RADIO and CHEAT MODES

Until late 1941 C.R.42s had no radio of any kind (see supplied history). Consequently well over half never had radio. Towards the end of 1941 new production aircraft were fitted with short (ten mile) range VHF radios for communication with the rest of the formation. Late production C.R.42s with short range radio have a VHF aerial protruding from the outer part of the upper left wing. A much smaller number of Falcos had M/F radio fitted even later for long range communication with command and control sources on the ground. The long range M/F aerial was a wire strung from the fin to the fuselage when rarely fitted. Only C.R.42s with the long wire aerial could obtain RDF vectors from ground stations, and only once they were within line of sight. This did however allow them to fly ZZ approaches, especially at night. None had radio navigation other than asking a ground station for bearings using the long range radio if fitted. Consequently when we fly the the original Falco we have no radio at all. If we have no radio the VC has no icon to demand one.

When we fly the later AS or LW we have (pop up) VHF to co-ordinate cadena attacks and communicate with our top cover. Because all radio was an afterthought in the C.R.42 it was mounted in an inaccessible location that works poorly within a VC and so within this flight simulation release all available radio controls are on 2D pop up panels accessed via the relevant VC icon. They play no significant part in this simulation. Most Falco Egeos were eventually retrofitted with VHF radio too. This could then be used to communicate with the Regia Marina task force for which they were CAP, or the anti shipping strike bombers for which they were the top cover. The VHF radio was not used to communicate with ATC. In varieties of C.R.42 which have radio we also have mode A IFF (a primitive transponder) for interrogation by Luftwaffe radars.

GPS is provided as a video game cheat mode, but we urge you use the the C.R.42 to learn how to conduct pilotage using realistic means instead of just cheating (see later).

When we fly the night flying optimised versions of the C.R.42 we have pop up MF radio as well as pop up VHF radio. These CN / CNSL and LW were the only variants that communicated with command and control sources on the ground as part of their operating doctrine. The CN eventually patrolled above cloud and needed to recover through cloud, potentially accumulating ice it could not remove in both directions. Its very high rate of climb was vital to minimising time of exposure to freezing cloud. These aircraft could fly standard ZZ approaches which we must simulate within MSFS using any real and relevant NDB approach plate and a 'pop up' ADF to obtain our QDMs. How to simulate ZZ (or NDB) approaches in MSFS is explained within the 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.calclassic.com.

Operating the C.R.42 as though it had the comprehensive electronic navigational capability of a Cessna 172 misses the point. The most advanced versions of this is aeroplane were utterly primitive. They didn't even have a gyro compass.

That concludes our cockpit and aircraft systems briefing. It is time to study handling procedures.

GROUND HANDLING.

This aeroplane has a parking brake. It has no toe or heel brakes and no differential braking. Like some modern training aircraft and many pioneer era / vintage era aircraft the parking = hand = emergency brake is the only brake. We must use it whenever we need any ground braking. For our convenience, (to avoid the need for remapping of desk top controls), I have allowed joystick buttons mapped to toe brakes to apply the parking brake, (but only to both wheels together). Applying the hand (emergency) brake to a moving vehicle, weighing several tons, does not stop it immediately, and with vintage era drum brakes may not prevent wheel rotation until vehicle speed is low. At high speed stopping the wheels from rotating only provokes skid anyway.

The tailwheel of this aircraft is 'restrained'. It provides no steering and it cannot be locked. It is restrained and returned to the 'in line' position by two strong rubber hoops. This functions as weak 'always on' tailwheel lock. The tailwheel does not castor. On the ground this aeroplane is steered by rudder (vectored thrust) alone. These circumstances make C.R.42 ground handling difficult for anyone who has no prior relevant experience. The biplane pilots who converted to the real C.R.42 were already experts in the relevant skills. Those of you who have learned the relevant skills in the Ansaldo SVA 5, Ansaldo SVA 9, or even the Breda 65, will have no problems with ground handling in the C.R.42. The Ansaldos are easier to control and make good lead in trainers for aircraft like the C.R.42. They were used as such for more than a decade after WW1, (see relevant tutorials within the Ansaldo SVA 5 release).

To steer with rudder we always need just sufficient propwash to create the necessary thrust to be vectored by the vertical aerofoil (the fin whose camber the rudder varies) . During ground operations the RPM lever is set to MAX and RPM is controlled solely with throttle . Because the tailwheel is retrained from castoring, and has no connection to the rudder bar, attempts to turn 'sharply' cause the tailwheel to scrub and resist yaw except during taxi at low speed and at shallow angles of turn which the rubber hoops will allow.

The C.R.42 belongs on grass, dirt, or desert runways. The following assumes those surfaces, and assumes the scenery author has coded the appropriate surface friction in the relevant bgl. Texture bitmaps do not contain runway friction code. Concrete and tarmac (compliant bgl code) have much lower rolling resistance, and tyre side force, and may require lower RPM operating targets to retain control. Rough surfaces cause (much) longer take offs and (much) shorter landings in MSFS, provided the scenery (BGL) author did his job compliantly. The thrust required to taxi and turn varies accordingly. This aeroplane does not belong on hard modern surfaces. You have been warned!

We need to get our head outside the cockpit with goggles down to maintain an appropriate parallax alignment to the external object of reference, which may be a taxi way edge, or the runway in use. Operating real aeroplanes is all about parallax compliance and the ways we achieve and sustain parallax compliance. We need a carefully designed VC used in a pure 3D environment to simulate this. In real life as we taxi out to the runway one of our ground crew may hold on to one wing tip to provide additional steering and to direct us by hand gestures, but in MSFS we must lean out and achieve parallax compliance versus the scenery while we are on the ground. That is anyway the normal situation when a taildragger taxies in after landing.

By default, during ground handling, we lean out of the C.R/42 cockpit to the right (CTRL + SHIFT + ENTER) so that we can monitor the engine status gauges on the left side of the main panel, as we taxi slowly over a soft surface airfield to the soft surface runway and line up. During the take off roll the left wing ASI is visible allowing us to monitor Vr if we are flying the Falco or Egeo. The cowl flaps are fully open. Carb heat may be HOT.

However during ground handling we must stick our head out of both sides of the cockpit in turn to achieve parallax alignment with, or collision avoidance of, objects on both sides of the aeroplane. The Fiat A.74 exhaust stacks are ducted under each wing so that our goggles do not become covered in soot and oil. Cowls are always full open on the ground and slightly obstruct our view, but we can see around the cowling just fine as we taxi to and from the runway in use with the engine gauges in plain view. The Sopwith Camel style 'gun hump' of the C.R.42 is very evident once we have our head out of the cockpit. Note how the open cockpit side slopes down making it easy for us to lean out. One hand is on the throttle. The other on the brake lever, while we steer with our feet at very low taxi speed. A 3D simulation control interface is essential to realistic operation of most taildraggers. A really good VC certainly helps!

If our weather briefing indicated that surface temperature is between 0 Celsius and +7 Celsius we move CARB HEAT to HOT before we taxi out. We must avoid inducing carb icing prior to take off.

Further realism requires us to stop frequently and then weave the nose (static turn) to check that the way ahead is still clear of obstacles, such as vehicles which may have moved into our blind spot under the nose.

Before we taxi anywhere in an aeroplane which has no wheel steering, and no differential braking, we must establish how slippery the local surface is today using the following technique.

1 RPM lever = MAX

2 Throttle = CLOSED

3 PARKING BRAKE = ON.

4 Rudder = FULL

5 Throttle = REQUIRED RPM.

Now we test what RPM are required to create the vectored thrust needed to make the aeroplane turn around its inner (locked) main wheel as the other skids (or rolls) across the surface. We test that it will not roll forward. The precise RPM needed to create static yaw with full rudder deflection will vary with the crosswind and our mass today, as well as the surface friction encoded in the MSFS bgl under our tyres right now. Under normal circumstances, on appropriate surfaces, 1500 RPM will be about right with brakes ON for any variety of C.R.42. We must always spend a few seconds evaluating the friction of the surface before we taxi a taildragger whether inbound or outbound! This is mostly a scenery surface (bgl) friction variable, not an aeroplane variable. In real life these things also vary with how long the grass is, how soft the sand is, how muddy the dirt is, and how wet any surface is.

With the aeroplane at rest we apply full rudder before we apply 1500 (the required) RPM to induce static yaw. We turn on the spot to our next ground track. Then we apply neutral rudder. Then we release the parking brake. Once the aeroplane is rolling we retard throttle to less than 1500 RPM. We taxi at fast walking pace, not a running pace. We taxi taildraggers slowly.

We can hold the aeroplane straight, but it may require very active rudder motion because we are at the very edge of inadequate yaw authority as we vector very little thrust. With a tailwind, or downhill, in order to restrain taxi speed appropriately we may need to apply the parking brake from time to time, (brief emergency cadence braking), while we taxi. No, this doesn't do the brakes any good, but it is better than losing control of our taxi speed.

We proceed straight ahead on the correct course until we need to make a turn through a large angle. When we do we brake to a full stop. Then we apply the parking brake and full rudder and only then 1500 (the required) RPM again and turn on the spot with full rudder to our next substantially different ground track. In the C.R.42 the parking brake can be ON to perform a static turn. Rolling turns through more than few degrees will lead to loss of yaw control, up to and including a ground loop. We must learn to be patient with very primitive pioneer era aeroplanes and the Falco is just a very primitive WW1 aeroplane with a lot more power and a better airscrew.

At very low RPM we have too little thrust to vector and we then have zero yaw authority. During ground handling we must sustain just sufficient RPM to give rudder authority to vector the thrust we supply.

It is easy to induce ground loops in aeroplanes like the C.R.42. We must (train to) avoid ground looping. When the compliant pilot technique is used it is impossible to lose directional control on the ground, otherwise doing so is very easy. Parking isn't the most interesting skill to learn in an agile combat aeroplane, but we must learn how to taxi and park (and unpark) the C.R.42 before we learn how to fly it.

************************

To Taxi:

PARKING BRAKE   = ON

COWL FLAPS      = OPEN

RPM LEVER       = MAX (full aft)

CARB HEAT       = HOT if OAT 0 to 7C ELSE COLD

GOGGLES         = DOWN

LEAN OUT LEFT   = CTRL+SHIFT+BACKSPACE

LEAN OUT RIGHT  = CRTL+SHIFT+ENTER

RPM            <> 1500 (static turn)

REQUIRED COURSE = ACHIEVED

PARKING BRAKE   = OFF

Once Rolling

RPM = REDUCE

PARKING BRAKE as required

STEERING = vector thrust with rudder

***********************

On some, but not all (MSFS bgl), surfaces it is possible to practice static turns with the parking brake OFF. 1300 RPM should work well on (default MSFS bgl) grass. Practice this more advanced skill only after mastering static turns with the parking brake on. With brake off we have less thrust to vector and yaw rate is lower, but inducing static yaw with brakes off is more realistic once we develop the necessary skill and patience. Learning to operate aeroplanes is ultimately more interesting than pretending to operate them, but inducing static yaw with brakes off within MSFS is more difficult than in real life.

During the take off run we apply 2400 GIRI of propwash to the fin as well as increasing profile drag (IAS) over the fin whose aerofoil camber and lift vector we are varying with rudder. With all that extra airflow over the fin aerofoil, even small rudder deflections, (small changes of fin camber and sideways lift vector), will cause aggressive yaw, with or without the castoring tailwheel in runway contact. We must (train to) moderate our rudder inputs according to propwash applied to the fin else we lose control of yaw.

During taxi operations we control yaw rate solely with throttle. During take off we control yaw rate solely with rudder. During the landing roll we land with throttle closed, but we must open it enough late in the landing roll to have sufficient thrust to vector using full rudder.

Remember these values are for appropriate soft WW2 airfield surfaces within MSFS. If you insist on operating vintage era taildragging aircraft from hard smooth modern surfaces expect to have problems keeping them under control!

NO AUTOMATIC OVERBOOST PROTECTION.

In video games War Emergency Power (WEP) is misrepresented as a simple 'go faster while the magic beans last' type of system however it worked in real life. Flight simulation requires more realistic understanding and management of both engine and airscrew. In many real combat aircraft WEP is obtained simply by running the engine at higher RPM, (over revving) using the GIRI lever, not by applying more BOOST by turning OVERBOOST protection off with a switch. Some real engines allow either or both options, with or without overboost protection / implementation at the flick of a switch. This complicates their operation, especially if they have no automatic overboost protection.

The Fiat A.74 engines is rated at 2400 GIRI. To achieve WAR EMERGENCY POWER we must first of all 'retard' the GIRI lever through the rated gate to the emergency stop to create 2520 GIRI. Remember these levers work 'backwards' in Italian cockpits.

To obtain or avoid WAR EMERGENCY BOOST we then use the throttle (gas) lever while watching the Pressione 'C' gauge.

During take off we must avoid both emergency GIRI and emergency OVERBOOST. Engine damage aside the resulting torque and p factor would render the aeroplane uncontrollable at low IAS. In a Falco there is no overboost protection switch to flick. Take Off and Go Around (TOGA) power is therefore much lower than WAR EMERGENCY POWER and we must (train to) restrict both GIRI and C to the maximum allowed for TOGA which relates to the control authority available at low IAS versus applied torque and p factor. We must do so carefully and manually.

TAKE OFF PHASE.

Before take off we must trim the elevator , to promote post unstick acceleration to our intended climb IAS, and to prevent premature unstick in gusts. The elevator trim associated with Vy = 200 KmIAS is 8 degrees cabrare. This matches the third tick mark cabrare or in MSFS we can read the trim wheel tooltip. The engine will overheat quickly at low profile drag = IAS. We opened the cowl fully after engine start and they must remain fully open during take off and during low IAS climb. CARB heat must be COLD = OFF before take off.

Both Taxi and Take Off technique in a taildragging open cockpit biplane require a goggles down and head out technique. Like ground target acquisition and the approach this can only be simulated using a true 3D (VC) simulation environment. Which side we stick our head out of open cockpits depends on where the engine exhausts are, (see Ansaldo SVA 5 release), and which gauges we need to monitor with only a flick of our real eyes while we have our head out of the cockpit. We choose our eyepoint and eyeline accordingly. Real flying does not happen in a 2D world of fixed eyepoints, or with necessary eyelines only in fixed directions. To understand and simulate the operation of pioneer and vintage era aeroplanes we must learn how to inhabit and control a 3D simulation.

In aeroplanes with no automatic overboost protection we must always line up and apply the parking brake before we limit BOOST = pressione = 'C' carefully and manually to TOGA BOOST. Most MSFS users will be more familiar with classic era piston propliners in which TOGA power is much more than RATED power. Without automatic boost protection, and with a tiny vintage era aeroplane, potentially abused by far too much torque to retain directional control, that situation is reversed.

Video games always limit manifold pressione for the user and provide the user with an overboost override switch whether the real aeroplane had overboost protection or not. That is not how the Fiat A.74 engine worked. It was very easy both to over rev and to over boost the A.74. Outside Britain and Germany the pilots of 1939 expected no automated protection and were critically aware of the need to limit GIRI and C manually, but most flight simulation users are not. For that reason we have supplied a (red when illuminated) overboost warning light between the pressione and GIRI gauges. The real pilot did not have that warnings system. To experience the real performance envelope of the C.R.42 we must operate it within its boost limits. Having an overboost warning light will help us to achieve that training goal. This isn't just a matter of 'cheating' or experiencing false performance; it is a matter of retaining control of torque consequence.

After lining up, and still 'head out', with the brakes ON, we carefully increase throttle to deliver only 0.86C. We must watch for compressor lag. After we set 0.86C, boost may increase again. We must wait a few seconds and if boost rises above 0.86C, causing the overboost warning light to illuminate, we must reduce back to 0.86C.

Now with sufficient fuel flow the engine will spool up to more than 2400 GIRI. We must now reduce GIRI to 2400. Running at more than 2400 RPM damages the engine and so we reduce GIRI as quickly as we can, but that is not the only reason we never use more than 2400 GIRI to take off. The more engine GIRI we impose, the faster the screw turns, and the faster the rotating propwash (P factor) impacts the tail causing yaw once the brakes are released. For take off we must restrain both C and GIRI to values below those we will use in combat. The values 0.86 and 2400 are the maximum safe values for TOGA. If either is higher we may lose directional control. We must never use full power, or maximum revs, to take off or go around. Still with our head out we set a maximum of 0.86C and a maximum of 2400 RPM. During type conversion we should fly to and from long runways which allow us to use less than maximum pressione (boost) during take off since that will reduce the 'torque swing' induced and which we must counter with rudder. Since the real C.R.42 never had rudder trim we should not use rudder trim during take off.

We restrain C and GIRI so that we have the rudder authority to counter the twin evils of p factor and torque roll, but by that means we also ensure that the engine oil and CHT (actually the exhaust valves) will not overheat even with low cooling drag (IAS) through the engine. The Fiat A.74 engine is wired to run autorich in the C.R.42. This makes it unlikely the cylinder head (actually the exhaust valves) will overheat before we start to burn the oil away; so our main concern at all times is Olio temperature. The Olio temperatura gauge is prominent and accurate and next to the GIRI gauge. The CHT gauge is an afterthought and is down on the right side console with the engine start gauges. It is however associated with a CHT warning light on the main engine panel left of the left gun ammo counter. When flying aeroplanes with Fiat A.74 engines the problem to be avoided is burning the oil away, not shattering of the exhaust valves. In the real C.R.42 the oil cooler shutters in the lower wing roots were under manual control, but within MSFS their operation is automated.

Still with our head out, having carefully applied no more than TOGA pressione, and no more than TOGA GIRI, while running against the parking brake we centre the joystick and release the brakes. The propwash we have carefully applied, versus the torque we have carefully limited, allows us to control yaw (gently!) with rudder even at low IAS. If the runway is long we allow the Falco to unstick with no intervention from us after it achieves Vy = 200 KmIAS. Only if the runway is short we gently unstick it manually at Vr = 165 KmIAS . The trim (8 degrees cabrare) we applied before take off is the trim that demands Vy = 200 KmIAS. In the Falco Vr for take off exceeds Vref for approach (see later) because the torque roll under high power is more difficult to control than under low power.

This is all abbreviated in the on screen handling notes as follows.

***************************************************************

Take Off:

COWL FLAPS = OPEN

CARB HEAT = COLD

ELEVATOR TRIM = 8 degrees CABRARE

GOGGLES = DOWN

EYELINE = HEAD UP LEAN OUT (CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER)

LINE UP

PARKING BRAKE = ON

PRESSURE = 0.86C (MAXIMUM)

GIRI = 2400

STICK = NEUTRAL (hands off)

PARKING BRAKE = OFF

STEER = *GENTLY* with RUDDER

DO NOT ROTATE

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

SHORT RUNWAY ONLY:

ROTATE = 165 KmIAS

PREVENT CLIMB

ACCELERATE = 200 KmIAS

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

EYELINE = HEAD DOWN (SPACEBAR)

GOGGLES = UP

Commence stage 1 climb

***********************

The jpg above and below illustrates head out operation during ground handling. Take off is simply no different. Notice that we can see the pressione value 0.86C so that we can guard against overboost during take off. We can see the GIRI gauge to set 2400 RPM after limiting pressione to 0.86C. We can monitor our profile drag = IAS using the left (wing) ASI in a Falco or Egeo, but unless we are using a short runway we do not need to monitor IAS anyway. If we took the time to configure our flight simulation window correctly we can do all of this head out without panning or scrolling during take off. Looking down the side of the fuselage we control yaw by lining up an external object of reference on the horizon ahead, or we use the right runway edge or centreline to control our track made good. With or without a crosswind, the aeroplane will yaw. We use rudder to control track made good, down the middle of the runway. The nose will be pointing elsewhere, before and after the tail comes up. Since from most runways we intend to use prior applied trim = Vy = 200 KmIAS to cause auto unstick the tail will normally be up for a large part of the take off roll, and then it is easier to control our track with rudder.

The C.R.42 will tend to yaw right, just after it begins its take off roll. Take no action. because it will soon yaw left and it is the torque yaw to the left we must counter with variable rudder as profile drag (IAS) over the fin increases during the take off roll.

If we manually unstick the C.R.42 from a short runway, at Vr = 165 KmIAS, before it reaches Vy = 200 KmIAS, we will encounter substantial 'torque roll ' to the left after unstick, but provided we do not allow unstick before Vr = 165 KmIAS, and we promote rapid acceleration to Vy = 200 KmIAS, we have the aileron and / or rudder authority needed to counter 'torque' roll and p factor yaw provided we limited C and GIRI compliantly.

If we allow IAS to decay after unstick we may lose directional control before the aeroplane stalls. This may seem like incipient spin, but it isn't. The remedy is to increase IAS, but to reduce power (torque and rotating propwash) applied. Climb gradient for nearby obstacle clearance at Vy = 200 Km IAS is so good in the Falco that we never need to target Vx which induces worse 'torque roll'.

 STAGE 1 CLIMB

Because, having no overboost protection, TOGA power is far below (high altitude) RATED power, and we can retain TOGA power, that we applied very carefully before brake release, throughout stage 1 climb, which only ends when we reach RATED ALTITUDE = 3800 metres, or the base of continuous cloud only if lower. This makes transition to STAGE 1 CLIMB a non event in the Falco and we concentrate on eliminating yaw.

**************************

Stage 1 climb (below 3800M):

COWL = OPEN

C = 0.86 *maximum*

GIRI = 2400

IAS = 200 KmIAS

IF OLIO => 110 Celsius THEN reduce GIRI

****************************

The Falco has an exceptional rate of climb even while restricted to TOGA power below RATED ALTITUDE. The pitch angle of the aeroplane is steep and the view ahead is very poor. We may decide to keep our goggles down and remain head out while we patiently eliminate torque roll with rudder (trim if no pedals in MSFS). Otherwise we use the comparison compass to monitor assigned track and the turn (S-D) gauge to eliminate turn rate (yaw). If we have no rudder pedals we will need to use the supplied fake rudder trim. Trim until the turn needle is centred, while self assigned magnetic heading on the lower compass barrel matches current magnetic heading on the upper barrel. If our route has a crosswind neither heading will match flight plan track, but in the C.R.42 we are usually map reading (using pilotage) to navigate anyway. We still need to eliminate turn rate.

After lift off MSFS users with no rudder pedals should apply the provided fake rudder trim to maintain constant heading to alleviate the need for continuous manual rudder input while climbing with high torque at low IAS.

In very hot air (over Africa) we may need to reduce below 2400 GIRI to restrain olio temperatura, and we may need to increase cooling drag = IAS above Vy to reduce cylinder head temperatures. The cowl remains fully open during climb below the freezing level. Once we are above the freezing level today we can experiment with closed cowl, but we must watch Olio temperatura. To maximise climb rate we sustain Vy = 200 KmIAS. We 'may' instead elect to increase cooling drag = IAS and to reduce nose pitch to see the horizon ahead, but of course this reduces climb rate and is not appropriate if we have been scrambled and must attain high altitude quickly, or we are based close to the flak batteries on a nearby front line. In general C.R.42 pilots made full use of its exceptional climb rate to achieve patrol (5500M) or cruise (7500M) altitude quickly and flew head out at modest IAS = Vy while sustaining flight plan track versus a line feature to the beam or landmark ahead

RATED POWER - STAGE 2 CLIMB.

While a Fiat A.74 engine is below its RATED ALTITUDE of 3800 metres we apply no more than TOGA pressione = 0.86C; unless engaged in combat. Simply flying a combat sortie is not the trigger for use of COMBAT POWER. Consequently it is really, really, dumb to cruise a Falco below its rated altitude. Video games allow any power at any altitude and invoke 'instant combat' at ludicrously low and unrepresentative altitudes. The air is then always thick and manoeuvrability is always high. Reality differs. To replicate real life we cruise and join combat above the rated altitude of our engine so that we can apply rated BOOST continuously. Below RATED ALTITUDE using RATED POWER constitutes use of OVERBOOST and any overboost (not just WEP) is limited to just 3 minutes per sortie.

In practice, cloud permitting, we will always choose to cruise far above our rated altitude. In a Falco we always choose to cruise at about double our rated altitude and at around 7500M (FL250) cloud permitting. Reality and video games have little in common. WW2 fighter biplanes did not cruise at WW1 combat altitudes. Being very slow they must cruise higher than enemy monoplanes to have any chance at all of intercepting them if that is appropriate, or avoiding interception if not. We must identify which monoplanes are threats and which are targets and we must have enough altitude to be the pilot who chooses which is which!

Once we are above our rated altitude of 3800M we can apply RATED POWER continuously. That will squander fuel very quickly and is never used to cruise, but once we are above 3800M we will initiate STAGE 2 CLIMB and now in thin enough and cold enough air we retard the GAS lever to increase to 1.07 C = RATED BOOST. Thus we significantly increase our VSI as we climb through RATED ALTITUDE and can apply RATED POWER. We increase our profile = cooling drag slightly for several reasons. If we are still below the freezing level over Africa we keep the cowl flaps open unless both engine temperatures are far below their limits.

***************************

Stage 2 climb (above 3800M):

COWL = OPEN

C = 1.07 (adjust continuously)

GIRI = 2400

IAS = 210 KmIAS

IF OLIO => 110 Celsius THEN reduce GIRI

Reaching 5500M begin CAP

Reaching 7500M begin cruise

****************************

Constant throttle (gas) lever position will not deliver constant BOOST (pressione) as we climb into ever thinner air. We must trickle retard our Italian GAS lever (but trickle advance our American desktop joystick throttle) to sustain RATED BOOST = 1.07C now we are in thin high cold air. If Olio temperatures creep up to unsafe levels in abnormally hot air over Africa we reduce GIRI. If CHT creeps up we increase cooling drag = IAS . We always increase our cooling drag to 210 KmIAS in climb above RATED ALTITUDE anyway (using about 7 degrees cabrare trim). We trim 8 cabrare before take off and we have no reason to retrim until passing 3800M in climb.

If our mission is SWEEP we will need very high velocity (TAS) to choose whether enemy aircraft are a threat, or a target, and that requires very thin air. If our mission is ESCORT = TOP COVER we will struggle to keep up with monoplane day bombers unless we seek much thinner higher air than is impeding their progress. At high velocity (TAS) our fuel exhausts quickly. Hypothermia is a huge risk, but we keep our exposure brief by using high velocity (TAS) by climbing high into very thin air to limit our profile drag = cooling drag = wind chill factor = IAS during the mission. We must never confuse profile = cooling drag = windchill = IAS with our velocity (TAS) or our speed (KTS).

If instead we intend to patrol (CAP) we must loiter for a long time. We have no wish to achieve high velocity during a patrol mission and to avoid hypothermia and frostbite we must stay much lower in warmer air and we must restrict our cooling drag = wind chill factor = IAS in our freezing open cockpit at all costs.

TACTICAL CRUISE.

The Falco was designed to cruise (SWEEP, ESCORT, TOP COVER or STRIKE) at only 5000M (FL164), burning 150 Kg/hr (from 362Kg full tanks) but that wasn't nearly high enough for real WW2 combat. Design tactical cruise power was less than TOGA power and much less than RATED power. It allowed fast progress (through enemy airspace and to fuel exhaustion) .

****************************

Design Tactical Cruise Power:

COWL = CLOSED

C = 0.8

GIRI = 2100

PLAN 150 Kg/hr

YIELDS 200 KTAS at 5000M (clean)

***************************

In reality tactical cruise for SWEEP or ESCORT or STRIKE missions had to be very high up at 7500M to provide interception of monoplane targets or avoidance of monoplane threats. Hypothermia and frostbite were significant risks, but fuel exhausted quickly at high velocity (TAS) minimising time of pilot exposure to extreme cold. Pilotage is easier when we can (almost) see the target area from top of climb and without any hope of wireless navigation easy pilotage was essential.

C.R.42 route finding techniques were very primitive unless formating on bombers with wireless navigation. From 7500M line features of all kinds can be followed over great distances and major landmarks such as lakes are also visible from great distances. Often in an area with several lakes or other replicated features it helps if we can see both / all of them so that we are not uncertain which is which. Cloud (ice) permitting it is very important to climb above the haze layer (in MSFS) during pioneer era navigation. In MSFS the haze layer is typically at FL150 and below. Cruising in the haze layer diminishes visibility and may preclude pioneer era navigation. Overheating engines were never a problem during Falco cruise. Real tactical cruise was very high altitude full throttle cruise, but up at 7500M (FL250) full throttle could not supply RATED BOOST and could not deliver design cruise boost.

****************************

Typical Tactical Cruise Power:

COWL = CLOSED

C = 0.72

GIRI = 2100

PLAN 150 Kg/hr

YIELDS 212 KTAS at 7500M

****************************

By climbing into ever thinner air we allow our velocity (TAS) to increase with no increase in our our profile drag (IAS) in the thinner air. It is almost 17C colder at 7500M compared to 5000M, but hypothermia and frostbite depend more on wind chill factor = cooling drag = IAS than they do on air temperature. The reduction in wind chill (IAS) more than made up for the lower temperature at 7500M. Endurance was unaltered (by reduction of BOOST), but more ground could be covered during the same time of pilot exposure at higher velocity (TAS) in thinner air. In the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations (MTO) 7500M cruising worked well. In the ETO, or over the Ukraine on the Ostfront, in winter, neither design tactical cruise, nor typical WW2 tactical cruise, worked at all. Open cockpit fighters had to be withdrawn from those theatres in winter, or tasked only to fly nearly useless medium level CAP, before more and more pilots were hospitalised with frostbite.

Nil wind range to fuel exhaustion in typical tactical cruise is 212 KTAS * 362Kg / 150Kg-hr = 510 miles. In ideal weather our practical combat radius is 40% of that <> 200 miles. In typical weather it is only 33% <> 170 miles. Our dry tank endurance is 362/150 hours = 2.4 hours. Our practical endurance is only 70% of that theoretical value (1.7 hours) if our mission is not patrol.

The supplied on screen handling notes assume a clean wing and operation at the normal departure weight of the original 1939 Falco.

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]

empty_weight = 4176 // ready for service including guns, ammo and oil

max_gross_weight = 5174 // typical ramp weight with 460 Litres AVGAS and 1000 rounds of HE ammo … mid 1940 production.

See supplied history re official versus real weights.

station_load.0 = 200, 0, 0, 0, //Pilot wearing heavy open cockpit clothing and parachute

;station_load.1 = 480, 0, 0, 0, //2 x 100Kg bombs, their racks and release cables

If we load external bombs their weight will induce extra drag and their bulk will cause additional co-efficient of profile drag (CDp), however that addition is tiny in the context of a biplane with already very high prior (CDp). TAS yield with external bombs aboard is only a few per cent worse and since our weather forecast is much more unreliable than that, the weight and drag of tiny bombs has no impact on our flight planning. Remember the bombs are so tiny that unusually we do not need to remove any fuel to load them. Only two late production versions of the C.R.42 have bomb racks in this flight simulation release.

COMBAT AIR PATROL (CAP).

The Falco was not procured as an interceptor. It was far too slow, but due to over ordering of the C.R.42, and under ordering of interceptors, C.R.42s were frequently ordered to provide CAP over their own bases, maritime convoys, naval task forces, or less frequently front line troops. The Falco Egeo (Aegean Falco) was created explicitly to provide CAP for ships at sea. All night fighter patrols were night CAP.

Outside Africa Combat Air Patrols should be flown at 5500M (FL180) . Over Africa CAP should be flown at or above 7000M to increase our chances of intercepting Bristol Blenheims and to evade sweeping Hurricanes. CAP must be above the anticipated ingress level of monoplane day bombers else a Falco has no hope of intercepting them. Over Africa we will not suffer hypothermia or frostbite even above 7000M provided we do not allow our cooling drag = wind chill to exceed 220 KmIAS. Service ceiling is utterly irrelevant and far above our environmental patrol ceiling of 7500M. Over Europe frostbite is a major problem in primitive open cockpits even at 5500M. It is essential that IAS (wind chill) be limited to 220 KmIAS during CAP to delay hypothermia and frostbite.

Patrolling is different to cruising. When we cruise we want to get somewhere quickly. When we patrol we orbit over our patrol area for as long as possible commensurate with running the engine at a power which provides adequate lubrication and avoids plug fouling.

****************************

Combat Air Patrol / Top Cover:

COWL = CLOSED

IAS = 220 KmIAS

GIRI = 2100

C = as required

PLAN 100 Kg/hr

Yields 151 KTAS at 5000M (clean)

****************************

We patrol directly over the asset we are assigned to protect. That asset may be moving and may be a ship, or a slow recce aircraft which orbits frequently to take photographs, or an orbiting artillery observation aircraft, in which case our PATROL may be defined as TOP COVER. Most of the day bombers we need to intercept during CAP everywhere will be Bristol Blenheims (see history). They are faster than the C.R.42! We must CAP with sufficient altitude to dive towards them in the hope of obtaining one firing pass before we are left behind. The Falco was too slow to intercept day bombers like the Bristol Blenheim unless they passed directly under the CAP holding pattern, but when fast day bombers were ordered to attack a target directly under C.R.42 CAP, at a combat radius where the day bomber could not be provided with fighter escort, the Falco could dive to engage briefly and over several years of such patrols a significant number of Blenheims were shot down (see history).

Outside Africa we CAP at medium altitude in warmer air and we always PATROL = CAP with low cooling drag = wind chill factor = IAS = 220 KmIAS everywhere. CRUISE has a TAS (velocity) target and no explicit IAS (drag) target. During cruise we apply pressione and GIRI compatible with a fuel burn just below 150 Kg/hr having planned 150. During CAP we patrol at 220 KmIAS, and fuel burn will be just below 100 Kg/hr which we must plan.

Medium altitude CAP missions could be assigned to C.R.42s in the ETO in winter, but cruise missions could not. The hypothermia and frostbite risk was too high (see history).

Nil wind range to fuel exhaustion in patrol power is 151 KTAS * 362 / 100 = almost 550 miles. Our theoretical dry tank endurance becomes 362/100 hours = 3.6 hours. Our practical endurance on CAP is 70% of that (2.5 hours).

The Egeo (interceptor) designed to patrol instead of cruise (sweep / escort) has 405Kg of 87 Octane AVGAS in lieu of 362Kg. This extends our patrol endurance and tactical combat radius, but by less than 12%. The Egeo was the only version of the C.R.42 designed as an interceptor and the only version designed to fly CAP (over Regia Marina task forces and supply convoys on passage).

FERRY MISSIONS.

From a theoretical standpoint long range cruising and patrolling are not the same thing, but at a practical level for a C.R.42 they are. In any variety of C.R.42 we increase our endurance by 50%, and our nil wind range by 8%, by preventing our profile drag from exceeding 220 KmIAS, and by not exceeding 5000M at any time during the sortie. This is how we ferry a C.R.42 (e.g. from Italy or Greece to Africa, or from Sardinia to Iraq – see history). Indeed whenever we are not in a hurry to arrive we treat patrol power as economical cruise power. This has no relevance to combat radius. On a combat mission, that is not a patrol mission, we employ 0.8 C pressione if forced to stay low by cloud, else we climb above 7000M and then we can full throttle cruise, maximising our velocity (KTAS) while reducing our profile drag = wind chill (KIAS). Our speed (KTS) always just depends on the wind today.

MISSION PLANNING.

A Falco always departs for any combat mission with full fuel. How long it lasts, and how far we can travel using it, depends on careful study and application of the handling notes and all associated tutorials. The 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.Calclassic.com explains how we measure a perceived headwind and how we must respond. In a Falco we use Maximum Cruise Power only to battle perceived significant headwinds.

MAXIMUM CRUISE POWER.

We never PLAN to use Maximum Cruise Power. Because the Fiat A.74 engine has no overboost protection Maximum Cruise Power is different above and below RATED ALTITUDE. This either greatly complicates our response to a perceived significant headwind, or makes it very simple, depending on how perfectly we wish to respond when we perceive a significant headwind. While we are below RATED ALTITUDE we must not employ more than TOGA pressione = 0.86C, or more than TOGA GIRI = 2400 RPM.

****************************

Max Cruise power (below 3800M):

Use only to battle headwinds

COWL = CLOSED

C = 0.86

GIRI = 2400

IF OLIO => 110 Celsius THEN reduce GIRI

Typically 175 Kg/hr

Yields 200 KTAS at 3000M

****************************

If we are trapped below RATED ALTITUDE by cloud and we perceive a significant headwind we must use TOGA power continuously to battle it. TOGA power is only a fraction of RATED power. When we encounter a significant headwind failure to increase fuel burn causes fuel exhaustion (see 2008 Propliner Tutorial). If engine temperature rises too high in very hot air we must reduce GIRI below RATED RPM. When battling headwinds we should not open the cowl to increase our co-efficient of cooling drag.

If we are not trapped below cloud we will be cruising far above 3800M when we encounter the perceived headwind. Cloud (icing) permitting we will descend, both to reduce the perceived headwind, and so that we can increase fuel burn to combat the perceived headwind. So long as we remain at or above RATED ALTITUDE = 3800M we can use higher fuel burn at higher pressione.

****************************

Max Cruise power (at or above 3800M):

Use only to battle headwinds

COWL = CLOSED

C = 0.95

GIRI = 2400

IF OLIO => 110 Celsius THEN reduce GIRI

Typically 200 Kg/hr

Yields 229 KTAS at 5500M (FL180)

****************************

In almost all cases the correct altitude at which to battle a perceived headwind in a C.R.42, (the only time we employ Maximum Cruise Power), is RATED ALTITUDE = 3800 M, since that allows continuous use of 0.95C at RATED GIRI having also descended to reduce headwind vector . Velocity (KTAS) maximises at 5500M = FL180, but when we need to battle a perceived headwind only our speed (KTS) matters. We never use Maximum Cruise Power to maximise velocity (KTAS). We use Maximum Cruise Power only to maximise speed (KTS). Using Maximum Cruise Power in the absence of a perceived significant headwind, which we must battle with increased fuel flow to avoid fuel exhaustion, causes far too large a contraction of endurance.

Nil wind range to fuel exhaustion in maximum cruise power is only 228 KTAS * 362/ 200 = 413 miles. Our dry tank endurance becomes 362/200 hours = 1.8 hours and our practical endurance is 30% less (1.25 hours). Endurance using Maximum Cruise Power is halved compared to patrol power. The endurance, or range, or combat radius of a fighter is not the number chosen at random and cited in the 'Boys Big book of Wonderplanes' and perhaps pointlessly repeated in an MSFS performance = section during aircraft selection. Even in simplistic nil wind conditions all are choices made by the pilot who operates the aeroplane accordingly

If we are forced to maximum cruise down at 3800M we, (and any bombers we are escorting) , are very vulnerable to interception by enemy fighters. Especially enemy fighters with higher RATED ALTITUDE (almost all of them). It may be better to cancel or delay the mission and that was the usual Regia Aeronautica solution (see history).

COMBAT POWER.

Combat power is not the same thing as WAR EMERGENCY POWER (WEP), but below RATED ALTITUDE = 3800M we must not employ more than TOGA pressione = 0.86C unless we are in the presence of the enemy. If we are actually being fired on we may use combat power to climb away from a target we have just strafed, or to escape a threat envelope more quickly while seeking terrain masking at very low level during egress from a ground target, but since use of more than 0.86C is OVERBOOST below RATED ALTITUDE, use of even combat power is limited to a maximum of three minutes (per sortie) below 3800M. We may as well employ full WEP below 3800M unless WEP causes engine temperatures to reach unsafe values in hot air in under 3 minutes.

Combat power requires the same C and GIRI inputs at any altitude. The reason combat power is important and differentiated from WEP is that above rated altitude = 3800M we may apply combat power continuously in the presence of the enemy subject to the cited temperature limits. Above 3800M COMBAT POWER does not OVERBOOST the A.74 engine. This gives us another huge incentive to spend as little time as possible below 3800M in a Falco. More than that it means that Falco combat performance maximises at the altitude in today's weather which allows our supercharger to pump air compressed to 1.07C into the engine while the engine is running at 2400 GIRI. Supercharger turbine GIRI are simply and directly geared from the engine crankshaft GIRI. Our single GIRI lever controls crankshaft and turbine RPM.

We are not entitled to employ combat power just because we are flying a combat mission. COMBAT POWER is employed only in the presence of the enemy, and only if there is sufficient reason.

 ****************************

Combat Power:

COWL = CLOSED

C = 1.07 (DO NOT EXCEED)

GIRI = 2400

REJECT if CHT => 220 Celsius

REJECT if Olio => 110 Celsius

*************************

Note that any pressione 'C' in excess of maximum cruise pressione (0.95C) above rated altitude, or in excess ofTOGA pressione (0.86C) below rated altitude. constitutes use of combat power in the relevant altitude band. 1.07C is only the safe continuous maximum above 3800M in air of average temperature. South of 45N, or in summer further north, continuous application of maximum combat power may overheat the engine and our real combat performance is limited by the weather today, not safe input maxima in handling notes.

COMBAT and other CEILINGS.

We never cruise using combat power, but we 'may' plan to cruise at the altitude which, in today's weather, at full throttle at 2400 GIRI could just deliver air compressed to 1.07C to the engine, if and when we pull tour Italian throttle full aft. We always wish to know what our 'combat ceiling' is anyway. Our combat ceiling (today) is the maximum altitude which in today's theatre of operations and weather allows us to develop combat pressione = 1.07C at full throttle (GAS) at combat GIRI = 2400 without causing Olio temperature > 109C or CHT > 219C.

In practice, for reasons explained above, Falco pilots almost always cruised above their combat ceiling so that they were always above any faster enemy aircraft they encountered and could decide whether those enemy aircraft were a target or a threat. We nevertheless need to know where our combat ceiling is today since we may be disadvantaged if we attempt fully engaged combat above our combat ceiling and below the combat ceiling of the enemy aircraft we engage.

This is one reason that we employ COMBAT POWER during stage 2 climb. During stage 2 climb we must continuously trickle retard our Italian throttle to sustain COMBAT = STAGE 2 CLIMB pressione. Eventually we reach the altitude at which we need full throttle using combat GIRI = 2400 to allow our turbine to pump air to the engine at 1.07C. That altitude is our combat ceiling, in this theatre of operations, in today's weather. It will be lower over Somalia than over Sweden because the air is thinner (hotter) over Somalia.

Our operational ceiling, (see 2008 Propliner Tutorial), defined by our lower tactical cruise power, , is always far above our combat ceiling, defined by our combat power. Our service ceiling defined by the aerodynamic variable Vx is irrelevant. Our patrol ceiling, defined by our target profile drag (Vcap = 220 KmIAS) for patrolling, is very high indeed, but in an open cockpit is so high that it is above our (hypothermia) environmental (survival) ceiling. We are the weakest component of this aeroplane in every way.

This is a tutorial not a book. I leave you to determine your combat ceiling in each weather pattern you fly in, and in each theatre of operations you fly in. You may also wish to test your patrol ceiling at Vcap using only patrol GIRI, your operational ceiling for developing tactical cruise pressione using tactical cruise GIRI, and your WEP ceiling using WEP inputs. Remember they are different every day and are different in different places. In a Falco we choose to tactical cruise above our operational ceiling, for the reasons given, and so operational ceiling has little tactical significance in any C.R.42.

WAR EMERGENCY POWER (WEP)

As in many (but not all) piston engined combat aircraft the only way to generate WEP is to generate war emergency boost, and (in many but not all aircraft) the only way to generate war emergency boost is to spool the supercharger turbine to more than combat RPM. So the first necessary step to generate WEP is to demand war emergency GIRI by retarding the GIRI lever through the combat gate and pulling it all the way back to 2520 GIRI at the emergency stop . The supercharger turbine is directly geared from the crankshaft and it spools up to run 5% faster too; delivering maximum war emergency pressione, provided the throttle lever is also fully retarded to its emergency stop, and provided we are below our war emergency ceiling in this theatre, in today's weather.

All our power ceilings vary with the weather every day. We use only atmospheric oxygen to generate power. In any variety of Falco (unlike some WW2 piston engined combat aircraft) we have no rocket fuel, or any other artificial source of oxygen to inject into a Fiat A.74 piston engine. To generate WEP we just spool up the crankshaft, to spool up the turbine, to pump more atmospheric oxygen into the manifold. The percent increase is constant, but air density outside is highly variable.

****************************

War Emergency power:

MAXIMUM 3 MINUTES

COWL = OPEN

GIRI = MAX

THROTTLE = MAX

REJECT IF OLIO => 120 Celsius

REJECT IF CHT => 260 Celsius

*****************************

At low altitude, especially below RATED ALTITUDE, WEP adds huge power to the Fiat A.74, but use of any pressione > 0.86 constitutes OVERBOOST which damages the engine, and is restricted to 3 minutes per sortie. Above rated altitude WEP adds little power to the A.74 (beyond continuously permitted combat power) and is still limited to three minutes per sortie. We rarely employ WEP above 3800M. It adds to little. We reserve WEP for use only below RATED ALTITUDE = 3800M. The cowl must be fully open to employ any OVERBOOST and WEP is a range of boost extending from 1.07 C upwards, whether or not emergency crankshaft GIRI exceeding combat GIRI = 2400 are employed to also spool the turbine to emergency rotation. Remember below 3800M any pressione > 0.86 is overboost.

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that when A.74 WEP was engaged below rated altitude oil temperature rose above 119C very quickly and that the oil burned away very quickly (see history).

When a combat emergency is deemed to exist, (the mere presence of the enemy is not nearly enough), we are allowed to run the A.74 engine to its three minute temperature limits which become 119C for the Olio and 259C for the exhaust valves in the cylinder head. This always damages the engine, but it will survive for three minutes provided those emergency values are not exceeded. It is not guaranteed to last for three minutes regardless of temperature reached. It is guaranteed not to last for more. There are no magic beans, just an intention to damage the engine and justify that decision in writing after landing.

If any engine temperature rises too high in very hot air we must reduce crankshaft RPM below RATED GIRI = 2400, not just below EMERGENCY GIRI = 2520. Our oil starts to burn away quite quickly as soon as oil temperature reaches 110 Celsius, (just above the normal operating limit), and it burns away very rapidly beyond 119 Celsius, (the emergency limit). There is quite a lot of oil in the oil tank and it is consumed, (burned away slowly), even at cruise GIRI. How long it takes for oil temperature to reach those unsafe, (110C normal and 120C emergency), limit values depends on OAT and our current cooling drag (KmIAS). With cooling drag below Vy = 200 / 210 KmIAS the engine overheats rapidly. If we use any OVERBOOST (COMBAT or WEP) to climb with low cooling drag (KmIAS) the engine overheats much faster than if we use OVERBOOST with high cooling drag (IAS) when chasing after a target aircraft or running away from a threat. In real life, in most combat aircraft, WEP is not time limited, it is temperature limited, and the temperature reached depends on IAS (cooling drag) generated.

The consequence of using too much OVERBOOST for too long may not be instant partial ,or total, engine failure, it is more often oil exhaustion on the way home, having burned too much of it away using OVERBOOST for too long much earlier in the sortie. Unlike the Breda 65 the C.R.42 has no olio contents gauge. We conserve olio to ensure it does not exhaust before our benzina exhausts by limiting all types of OVERBOOST to 3 minutes per sortie. OVERBOOST increases olio burn much more than it increases benzina burn. When we use the gas lever to invoke OVERBOOST, or we use the GIRI lever to invoke emergency turbine RPM, we are burning a lot of oil as well as fuel and in a Falco we cannot monitor oil contents. This gives rise to an OVERBOOST time limit (3 minutes maximum per sortie) as well as a temperature limit.

HANDLING NOTE OVERVIEW.

We are now in a position to understand the engine management issues cited at the top of the supplied handling notes. These same abbreviated handling notes apply to all versions, Differences not stated below are addressed only via this tutorial.

*********************************************************************

Pilot's Handling Notes for the Fiat C.R.42 with Fiat A.74/RC38 engine

*********************************************************************

The Fiat A.74/RC38 engine has a constant speed airscrew, automated mixture controls, set to run autorich to achieve necessary augmented cooling, and manually applied carb heat controls. This engine lacks any form of automatic boost control which makes the necessary manual limitation of both RPM (GIRI) and boost (pressione) complicated.

Manifold Pressure in Italian aeroplanes (Pressione) is measured in kilogrammes per square centimetre abbreviated to C. This engine is rated to run at 2400 GIRI and delivers its rated power of 840 hp (CV) only after reaching an altitude of 3800 metres. Maximum safe power at sea level is only 740 CV. Below 3800M pressione must be restricted manually to only 0.86C. Unless WAR EMERGENCY POWER is required RPM must be manually restricted to 2400 GIRI at all times *including use of combat power*. Careful manual restriction of both Pressione and GIRI for take off, and whenever below 3800M is mandatory. COMBAT POWER must *not* be deployed outside combat and WAR EMERGENCY POWER must *not* be employed in the absence of a combat emergency.

WARNING - Application of pressione in excess of 0.86C for TOGA may cause uncontrollable torque roll at low IAS.

CAUTION - At low IAS with substantial power applied TORQUE ROLL consequence is substantial. As power and IAS vary, aggressive use of rudder (trim) is required to prevent uncommanded yaw, and thus negate torque roll.

This engine delivers maximum COMBAT POWER with pressione = 1.07C while running at rated GIRI = 2400. Use of combat pressione outside combat is forbidden and C must be restrained manually. During combat, and only during combat, CONTINUOUS use of COMBAT POWER (pressione = 1.07C) is authorised subject to limitation of engine temperatures.

COMBAT PRESSIONE (C=1.07) may also be used during aerobatics training but the engine must be limited to 2350 GIRI. Use of WEP during aerobatics is forbidden.

This engine can deliver substantial WAR EMERGENCY POWER at sea level, provided BOTH war emergency GIRI and war emergency PRESSIONE are applied together. Available WEP declines rapidly with altitude.

WAR EMERGENCY RPM: Use of GIRI > 2400 = WAR EMERGENCY RPM.

WAR EMERGENCY BOOST: Use of C > 1.07 = WAR EMERGENCY BOOST.

WARNING - AVOID UNNECESSARY USE OF EITHER WAR EMERGENCY SETTING.

WARNING - MAXIMUM OVERBOOST USE = 3 MINUTES per sortie at any altitude. Use of combat power is overboost below rated altitude.

WARNING - In addition any overboost must be REJECTED if OLIO temperature reaches 120C.

Normal cruising altitude for escort, top cover and sweep is 7500M (FL250). Design CAP altitude is 5500M (FL180). Optimum band for combat is 3800M to combat ceiling.

Maximum and default internal fuel load is 362Kg (796lbs) of leaded 87 Octane AVGAS. The Falco Egeo has 405Kg.

CAUTION - this aircraft has NO FLAPS. Head out of cockpit goggles down technique is required for taxi, take off and landing.

*****************************************************************

Now we have studied Fiat A.74 boost and RPM management it is time to confront a variety of handling issues unrelated to engines and the way that they are portrayed within MSFS

MSFS IMPLEMENTATION OF (LOSS OF) CONTROL AUTHORITY.

MSFS Flight Dynamics authors must replicate (using air file code) the ugly compromises made by the real FD author(s) as aviation evolved. For the low IAS case this can be fully realistic. We experience mushy controls at low IAS. We must not mistake that deterioration of control authority for stall. The aeroplane will respond to pitch and roll inputs, but only slowly. However in the absence of all inputs it will continue in its prior equilibrium state. It will not depart controlled flight if it is in controlled flight. Air flow over the wings is still streamlined, not turbulent. It is not stalled, and therefore it will not spin.

If we apply more propwash over the tailplane to improve pitch authority, that cannot improve roll authority. There is no propwash over the ailerons.

As we apply more propwash we apply more torque. The aeroplane will torque roll and that will induce torque yaw which we must counter else we may *incorrectly* deduce that incipient spin has developed. The experience can present very like a progressive stall, followed by incipient spin, but the wing is nowhere near stalled and is still at a modest Angle of Attack (AoA) when we lose control authority due to excessive IAS decay (pilot error) well above the 1G clean stall IAS = Vs = 128 KmIAS. Having both no flaps and no slats the stalling 'speed' of the Fiat C.R.42 biplane is higher than the stalling speed of the Breda 65 monoplane

We can tell that progressive control authority degradation as IAS decays has nothing to do with stall by repeating the exercise with 4.5G applied. To be able to apply 4.5G we must have 'high' IAS and responsive controls at much higher IAS. Now the aeroplane will stall (with profile drag = 271 KmIAS) long before it suffers degradation of control authority in any axis.

In all aeroplanes stall depends on G applied. Control authority instead depends on profile drag applied = IAS.

We must conduct relevant skill training at medium level. We must (train to) recognise degradation of both pitch and roll authority as IAS decays at different propwash, (torque and p factor), values until we understand how those four parameters interact so that their interaction does not catch us out at low level, either after take off, or on final approach. We must (train to) anticipate and avoid control degradation due to IAS *decay* (pilot error) at modest AoA. If we have no rudder pedals we will wish to relieve continuous manual rudder application using the supplied bogus rudder trim.

For maximum realism ensure your torque and p factor realism sliders are full right before flying the Falco!

MSFS IMPLEMENTATION OF PROFILE DRAG ABUSE.

It is essential that MSFS flight dynamics authors replicate the relevant dynamics of high IAS and high Mach abuse, else all aeroplanes have fantasy performance envelopes in MSFS, (and most do). However FS developers have no control over your desktop joystick. If we could force you to bench press hundreds of pounds on it to achieve tiny elevator deflections due to your abuse of the aeroplane with huge profile drag (IAS) the only result would be that you smashed your joystick, or ripped the bolts that hold it to your desk right out of the desk, or you overturned your computer desk. The consequence of profile drag abuse simply cannot be implemented realistically in *any* desk top simulation.

MSFS FD authors are required to misrepresent control freezing as the opposite.

Regardless of the profile drag abuse you are inflicting you will be able to push your tiny joystick full forward with anywhere from less than a pound of pressure to a few pounds. The air file will however measure your profile drag abuse (IAS) and prevent the elevator and ailerons from deflecting to an angle larger than a fit young combat pilot could bench press.

This means that frozen controls in the real aeroplane are again represented as mushy controls in *any* desk top simulation. You will never receive the tactile cues that are huge and eventually overwhelming for the real pilot who cannot induce more and more abuse. There is a limit to the pounds he can bench press. This then has nothing to do with your personal skill or strength. A correctly encoded air file applies (only) the strength of a default combat pilot for you even though you can continue to move your desktop joystick easily.

No desktop flight simulator can prevent you from moving your joystick from full forward to full aft in an instant at any IAS. During desktop flight simulation, although maximum control surface deflection is (should be) correctly constrained by the FD author, consumers can nevertheless induce impossible rates of change between full (available) up and full (available) down control surface deflection and that can cause the aeroplane to 'lurch' as an impossibly sudden input is generated. It is up to consumers to train themselves to make progressive control inputs.

We must conduct relevant skill training at medium level. We must (train to) recognise degradation of both pitch and roll authority as IAS increases at different propwash (torque and p factor) values until we understand how those four parameters interact so that their interaction does not catch us out at low level, especially during high angle strafing attacks and aerobatics. We must (train to) anticipate and avoid control degradation due to IAS *increase* (pilot error) at modest AoA.

This is not a book which supplies the answers. You will understand the upper and lower limits of pitch and roll control authority in the C.R.42 properly only if you use your flight simulator to do the testing and evaluation yourself, (at substantial height). There is then more chance that you will remember how badly (or insignificantly) control authority deteriorates, before you screw up at low level and crash. All realism sliders must be full right during such training.

The co-efficient of profile drag of the Falco was so high that it could not reach velocities which might have induced transonic shock. Mach induced relocation of the Centre of Lift (CoL) versus CoG is of no consequence. The Falco does not suffer 'nose tuck' in steep dives and there is no control reversal. It is too slow to reach relevant Mach numbers. It has no (measurable) Mach limit.

The structural integrity of the Falco is so high, and its co-efficient of profile drag so high, that just like a well designed WW1 Fighter (see Ansaldo SVA 5 release) it reaches terminal velocity before there is any risk of structural failure due to profile drag abuse. The Falco also has no measurable Vno or Vne. In a Falco there is no way to cause structural failure other than by collision!

If we pull G we will always suffer G induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) before we can cause structural failure. The Falco is stronger than we are in every possible respect. The same applies to pushing negative G. The consequence is that we run out of strength to apply more and more abuse. As we dive vertically the profile drag on the elevators overcomes any trim we apply and any push we can possibly apply. The real pilot tries to hold the control column forward but he cannot. The profile drag abuse overwhelms his muscle strength. Elevator deflection angle diminishes as IAS abuse rises and the pilot loses pitch authority. The angle of the dive diminishes. We can hold our desk top joystick full forward just fine but the FD author uses the air file to measure the pounds of force required to deflect the elevator and then prevents that deflection once our IAS abuse is out of control. Nothing will break, but we still lose control.

We must (train to) understand that *with enough height available* the real aeroplane will (eventually) reduce dive angle from a vertical or steep dive, (powered or otherwise,) and that there is nothing we can do about it. Without power steering we do not have the muscle strength to sustain a vertical or very steep dive. A WW1 biplane had less power and much lower terminal velocity. The pilot might be able to counter the profile drag on the elevators, to sustain a vertical dive, but a Falco can easily dive to profile drag abuse which will overwhelm our input.

Once we apply huge profile drag (IAS) abuse to the elevator we cannot deflect it up very far to recover from the dive either! At very high IAS we lose pitch authority in both directions. We have no power steering! This is not an F-16. Without power steering we must think harder before we induce huge IAS abuse.

We simply have to remember that MSFS (like all other desk top simulators) misrepresents frozen controls as mushy controls. We determine which problem is degrading our control authority by reference to our profile drag = IAS.

AEROBATICS.

All aerobatics are performed with 2350 GIRI pre selected. Pressione must be restricted to no more than 1.07C throughout. Below our RATED ALTITUDE of 3800M any aerobatic sequence must not exceed three minutes if we employ > 0.86C.

The Falco has highly responsive controls. A delicate touch is required, especially during desk top simulation when the force required to achieve maximum control surface deflection is minimal and input device lever arms are very short. At low IAS full aft joystick will induce both 1G stall and accelerated stall very quickly. Elevator and rudder authority are substantial, even at low IAS, especially when augmented by propwash. Since that is the normal situation during aerobatics gradual loss of roll authority as IAS decays below 150 KmIAS is more noticeable, but the Falco has more than adequate aileron authority at Vref = 150 KmIAS, only becoming critically poor at even lower profile drag values which should be avoided during aerobatics. Roll authority is also an inverse function of applied torque.

Although some fuel will flow while inverted the A.74 engine will suffer substantial power loss under negative G.

Starting from level flight practice loops from lower and lower entry IAS, while learning to avoid stall in the pull up, and learning to avoid both negative G and stall over the top. Evaluate the minimum entry IAS required. Evaluate whether the low point of your loop is below the entry altitude to discover minimum height for loop initiation as well as minimum IAS for loop initiation. Adding rolling manoeuvres should present no great difficulty. Use rudder to keep the slip ball centred.

SPIN & RECOVERY.

If further back pressure is applied to force the elevators beyond the limit of travel with full up trim applied, while rudder is opposed to aileron, a gentle flick to incipient spin in the direction of applied rudder will occur. However the nose will drop immediately and the incipient spin will convert to spiral dive until the controls are neutralised when spiral dive will convert to dive. The propensity of the nose to tuck or pitch thereafter depends on the elevator trim applied prior to the incipient spin. The Falco was much less spin prone than its fighter opponents, or the Breda 65.

HEIGHT and QFE not ALTITUDE and QNH.

In the cruise we set the altimeter to the QNH so that it displays our altitude above mean sea level. At Time of Descent (ToD) we lose interest in our *ALTITUDE*. Thereafter we need to operate the aeroplane by reference to our *HEIGHT* above the target or landing runway. To make any altimeter display height instead of altitude we must reset the Kohlsmann scale from QNH to QFE.

To measure our height above any target, (whether to bomb it or land on it), we simply subtract its altitude from our altitude. If the landing runway has an altitude of 150 metres our cruising altitude is 7500M then our height (above the runway ) is 7350M. We use the Kohlsmann knob on the altimeter to set QFE by subtracting the target altitude from our altitude. In a Falco we *always* switch from QNH to QFE *before* we descend so that we have a nice round number (usually 7500) to subtract from!

As we set QFE with our mouse we watch the altimeter needle not the Kohlsmann scale.

If the landing runway (or target) is at great altitude the Kohlsmann knob will not have sufficient control over the aneroid capsule of the barometer = altimeter to force the altimeter to display height instead of altitude. If we must land on a runway whose substantial altitude prevents us from just resetting our altimeter to display height (by setting QFE) we must retain or reset QNH, (by pressing the B key in MSFS), and operate the aircraft as though we were flying in the United States in the modern era of aviation history even though we would rather have used QFE to display our height in accordance with vintage era doctrine.

If landing runway altitude is 650 metres or more we will not be able to 'subtract' that much altitude using the Kohlsmann knob and we must fly the circuit pattern at an altitude of 950M QNH instead of a height of 300M QFE. They are identical of course.

We must always study maps or charts of our destination (or target) to determine the altitude of the landing runway (or target) in order to plan our circuit (or attack) pattern height to achieve circuit (attack) pattern parallax compliance (see later) before landing on that destination runway. Or attacking that ground target.

DESCENT PHASE.

We flight plan Time of Descent (ToD) in exactly the same way as we would in a propliner descending to cross an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) at the compliant altitude, except that the IAF becomes a point short of the attack plan IP if we are descending into an attack pattern. We fly the descent profile from ToD to the IP or IAF carefully preventing unwanted profile drag (IAS) increase. Descent is invoked with throttle, not joystick, and not trim.

If you have never learned how to plan Time of Descent (ToD) or how to control profile drag (IAS) in descent;

....see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.Calclassic.com/tutorials

As we approach the target area how we execute the descent may differ from the flight planning assumption and will depend on enemy activity and weather in the target area, but we rarely know what either will be when we (our chain of command) plan the mission. During a ground attack mission we treat the attack pattern and the circuit pattern identically. They just have different precise glideslopes we must achieve at either end of the mission.

***********************************

Descent phase:

COWL = CLOSED

GIRI = 2100

C > 0.4

VSI = to sustain prior cruise IAS

WHILE OAT < 7C CARB HEAT = HOT

************************************

Application of less than 0.4C in flight for more than a minute or two causes oil pressure and circulation to become inadequate inside the Fiat A.74 engine, may cause plug fouling, as well as loss of adequate suction to drive the vacuum gauges in variants of the C.R.42 which have a vacuum system. Throttle is fully closed during a brief high angle dive attack, and may be fully closed on final approach to land, but *not* during prolonged descent from cruise.

If our mission was CAP we do not allow IAS to fall below 220 KmIAS. Many flight simulator enthusiasts lose control of their compliant IAS target during descent. The skill required is prevention of significant IAS increase, and then reduction of profile drag to match the arrival (or attack) phase IAS target. Any other (piston engine) technique, even if safe, causes unwanted profile drag (IAS) and therefore just wastes fuel. In aircraft which are critically short of fuel it is even more important to sustain prior cruise IAS in descent (make a cruise descent) if weather and the enemy do not preclude that optimum choice. In a Falco we never have fuel to waste and descent from cruise is a substantial fraction of the mission, especially if it happens at both ends of the sortie.

Prior cruise IAS is different every day. The aeroplane measures the air density in today's weather and alters its profile drag accordingly. The profile drag (IAS) that optimised combat radius in level flight today, is the drag that optimises combat radius in descent too. If we had a perceived significant headwind today we descended and we increased fuel burn to increased our profile drag (IAS) to reduce our velocity (TAS) and increase our speed (KTS). In prolonged descent we must retain prior weather penetration by sustaining the compliant IAS, which is the IAS that emerged in level flight cruise, with the compliant power applied, at the compliant altitude, today. It is not a number in a book or manual, but nor is target IAS in prolonged descent a random value. It is a constant in any given weather pattern. VSI varies accordingly with C just above 0.4.

ARRIVAL PHASE.

We will study C.R.42 attack pattern planning and execution later. As we approach the target area in the attack pattern we may opt to reduce IAS to extend target identification and threat evaluation time. When we return to our home base we introduce an arrival phase prior to the circuit and approach phase in which we reduce our profile drag to a value compatible with visual circuit pattern operations. We greatly assist that process by compliant planning of ToD and compliant constraint of IAS throughout the prior descent phase.

*****************************************

Before Joining Circuit - Arrival phase:

BOMBS = JETTISON (*use payload menu*)

Passing 500M QFE in descent:

COWL = OPEN

GIRI (LEVER) = 2400

IAS = 220 KmIAS

OAT <7C CARB HEAT = HOT

*****************************

We never enter the circuit pattern with bombs still aboard. During the arrival phase if we have bombs still aboard, for which we found no target, we must fly somewhere we are allowed to jettison them. We JETTISON any weapons not already dropped during this phase. While based in Libya we will just dump them in the sea. In MSFS if we failed to remove the weight of the bombs after a fighter bomber attack, *we must remove the weight of the bombs at this stage of the flight by using the on screen payload menu, during the arrival phase and before the approach phase.

If we also failed to remove the drag of the bombs using the spoiler key during egress (see later) we must remove the drag of the bombs now. We normally jettison the warload at an IAS and height which, conversely to an attack, will cause the munitions to enter the water and sink without ever arming. Of course if we jettison bombs at great height and Glenn Miller happens to be flying underneath us his aircraft will be destroyed by simple kinetic mid air collision. Before we jettison bombs we take great care to prevent collision with other aircraft, ricochet and explosion.

After jettisoning any munitions, during the subsequent arrival phase, prior to a circuit pattern Italian doctrine requires us to trim for circuit pattern IAS as we descend through 500M QFE. We elevator trim to achieve our arrival phase profile drag target which is 220 KmIAS.

Overdrive GIRI = 2100 are no longer appropriate for a dense traffic environment at low vehicle velocity. In a terrestrial vehicle we use manual gear shift to select low gear to demand higher traction RPM at constant fuel flow. In a Falco, during the arrival phase, before the circuit phase, we retard the GIRI lever to 2400 to improve low velocity traction (thrust).

After we have achieved all the operating targets of the arrival phase, in the correct sequence, we may proceed to enter the visual circuit pattern of our base airfield.

CIRCUIT PATTERN PHASE.

In a Falco we never enter a circuit pattern at more (or less!) than 220 KmIAS. The busy circuit pattern is no place to be travelling at high IAS or to be struggling to get IAS under control. We need plenty of time to concentrate on achieving our head up parallax compliance targets. Flying a circuit pattern requires precise head up 4D pilotage = parallax compliance.

220 KmIAS is a profile drag of about 60 metres per second and about 120 KIAS. Downwind in any circuit pattern our speed will slightly exceed 120 KTS which is two miles per minute. At modest bank angles appropriate to 'low' IAS flight in the circuit pattern our radius of turn will be large. Our downwind (baseline) stand off range from the landing runway must be 1.5 miles <> 9000 feet <> 2700M, and we will fly the pattern at a height of 300M <> 1000 feet QFE.

During a circuit pattern the compliant head up parallax cue may again be a canopy cue, but in low wing aeroplanes or biplanes it is more usually a defined location along the span of the wing, and of course we must (train to) identify the specific parallax compliance cue for every different aeroplane we fly so that we can achieve the necessary head up parallax compliance versus the landing runway whilst downwind in the circuit pattern.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts forever pretend that they are the only aeroplane in the sky and that they can wander wherever they like. In real life every circuit pattern has a compliant height and a compliant stand off range from the runway. Each pilot must sustain the compliant height and then achieve the compliant stand off from the runway *using head up parallax compliance*. In real life it is not acceptable to wander randomly through the circuit pattern of several adjacent airfields, over the nuclear power plant, into the local artillery range, or through the local nature reserve, while approaching the landing runway from any direction that happens to be convenient to us today, and physical obstacles such as local masts and hills must be avoided by specific margins in any weather.

RUNWAY UTILISATION

Many flight simulation enthusiasts forever pretend they can wander as far from the runway as they like and take as long as they like to proceed from downwind, (any distance they choose abeam the touchdown point), to the time of landing. In real life that runway has a defined capacity. It must achieve a defined movement rate. Either to deliver a profit to the owners of that airfield, or to recover a large formation of military aircraft, all returning from a mission together, before the last to land runs out of fuel or oil! Many flight simulation enthusiasts also inhabit an imaginary world in which they are always number one to be given clearance to approach and land and never need to enter a holding pattern to await their turn to approach.

In the vintage phase of aviation history formation approaches and landings were rarely attempted, (under combat conditions), even though formation take offs frequently were. Suppose there are no take offs allowed while a formation of 20 aircraft, returning from a mission, take it in turns to land on the only suitable runway (which has had the bomb craters filled in and compacted). To ensure that the last of them does not need to hold outside the circuit pattern, in the airfield holding pattern, (at the initial approach fix = IAF), for more than 10 minutes, then one aeroplane must land every 30 seconds with a runway utilisation rate of 120 aircraft per hour.

An aeroplane needs to turn base leg every 30 seconds in order for one to land every 30 seconds. An aeroplane needs to go downwind abeam the landing zone every 30 seconds. Aerial navigation is TIME based. Approach spacing is not a pilot chosen variable. But above all else the time from abeam touchdown to touchdown is not a random pilot chosen variable during combat operations. There is a defined landing rate to be achieved which is as precise as the timing of a Cadena attack pattern. Distances are utterly irrelevant to compliance. Speed (KTS) and velocity (TAS) are utterly irrelevant to compliance. The TIME from abeam touchdown to touchdown must be compliant and the distance from abeam touchdown to touchdown just varies with the speeds of the different aeroplanes in question. Aerial navigation is TIME based *not* speed based, *not* distance based. Aerial navigation is 4D.

Each combat aeroplane (of any type) must take the same TIME to lose 300M (1000 feet) of altitude and slow down for landing. There is a perfectly good reason why a VSI shows feet per minute or metres per second and not per mile or per kilometre. It is not a design deficiency. It is how aviation works. Aviation is a TIME based 4D activity. Losing 1000 feet in two minutes requires minus 500 ft/min VSI in every aeroplane ever built. Losing 300M in 120 seconds requires minus 2.5 m/s VSI in every aeroplane ever built. There is no aircraft type dependent variation at all. We must (train to) navigate in 4D, not 2D, not 3D.

When we need to turn base leg is not a random location in space /time. It is a very precise 4D location which we must cross both *on time* and at the compliant baseline displacement from the runway touchdown zone. We must progress from that descent point (DP) to the touchdown zone (just another target) in the compliant time interval. Real amateur student pilots learn how to do this in a few hours, but many flight simulation enthusiasts have still not acquired that elementary skill after a thousand.

For a Falco ten minutes of holding fuel is a significant percentage of maximum fuel. If a Falco operates in a formation of twenty aircraft, (of any kind from the same base), one of them will need that holding reserve, *in addition to other fuel reserves discussed elsewhere in these tutorials*. The requirement for a significant additional holding reserve in the last aircraft to land limits the combat radius *of the entire formation*, and it is the runway, (or aircraft carrier deck), utilisation rate that limits the maximum size of formation which can strike a given target at a given combat radius. Incompetent circuit pattern planning and compliance reduces bombs on target, just as easily as incompetent attack pattern planning and compliance. Children playing video games choose to ignore that reality and never (train to) acquire the compliant circuit pattern skills.

In North Africa, the Aegean, and Albania airfields were very few and far between. . Wander wherever you like, and take as long as you like, is *not* how any variety of aerial navigation works. Not even head up VFR navigation. Aerial navigation is a precise 4D skill, whether head down using gauges and timed flight plan legs, or head up using parallax compliance and timed flight plan legs. En route VFR navigation is just another case of these same skills, repeated over and over again from parallax compliance to parallax compliance. Each waypoint of a VFR flight plan is just another visual Interception Point (IP) in a whole series of IPs.

In the real world everybody cannot be number one to obtain approach clearance, and survival of the last aircraft returning from the mission, (by avoidance of fuel and oil exhaustion), requires the prior aircraft to achieve first very precise head up parallax compliance, so that their downwind offset from the landing runway is compliant as they go abeam the touchdown zone, and then precise flight plan leg *time compliance* from that precise location to touchdown.

Combat flight simulation is the intention to become very skilled at head up parallax compliance and the flying of timed legs, whether in circuit patterns or multi doctrine attack patterns, and from one IP to the next IP, (course change), whilst en route between the two precise and parallax compliant patterns at either end of the mission. Combat flight simulation is not a variety of 'shoot em up video game'. Combat flight simulation is all about learning and mastering the skills of head up parallax compliance *in all directions*.

DOWNWIND PARALLAX COMPLIANCE.

During the circuit phase of our combat sortie we need to concentrate our time on the skill of head up parallax compliance. It is essential that the aeroplane is already trimmed to fly hands off at the compliant IAS, with no (weight or drag of) bombs still aboard, before we ever enter the circuit pattern. We achieve all of that in the prior arrival phase and since in real life we are rarely number one to approach we have plenty of time to achieve our arrival phase operating targets. Even if we clear ourselves to approach first they are not optional and must be achieved before we seek downwind parallax compliance.

Italian vintage era circuit patterns are flown 300M (1000 feet) above the landing runway. Consequently during a circuit pattern we need a parallax compliance cue which measures stand off (baseline) range from the landing runway continuously. That parallax cue must therefore be at (about) 90 degrees azimuth from the datum line when we turn our eyeline 90 degrees azimuth from the datum line. The nice thing about agile piston engined combat aeroplanes is that they nearly all come with a wing leading or trailing edge fairly close to where we are seated (our default eyepoint) and which is always pretty much 90 degrees azimuth to the datum line.

In a Falco (*or most other WW2 combat aircraft*) compliant head up stand off range for a visual circuit flown at 300M = 1000 feet is 1.5 miles <> 9000 feet <> 2700 metres.

All miles in aviation, (and therefore in this tutorial), are nautical. Everything in aviation is calculated to base 60 since one minute is the universal conversion factor between space and time. *One minute of latitude* (<>6000 feet) flown at 60 KTS takes *one minute of time* which is 60 seconds and 1/60 of an hour. The Royal Navy designed the skill of navigation (pilotage) that way to make life simple a very long time ago. The universal space / time constant is one minute (actually second) in every type of measuring system everywhere, including the metric system.

When we carry out type conversion training to any new aircraft we always need to discover the parallax cue which overlays the parallel track on the surface which is 9000 feet <> 1.5 miles <> 2700M distant at 90 degrees to our track when we are at a height of 1000 feet above that parallel track. That cue is the 9 to 1 range to height cue. In real life in some aeroplanes we can use a canopy cue (crayon mark) at 90 degrees to the datum line, but in aeroplanes with unswept wings it usually just as easy to note and remember a position of some component of the wing which overlays the parallel track 1.5 miles (9000 feet) to the beam (at zero roll) from a height of 300M = 1000 feet QFE.

Of course it would be nice if every aeroplane had a lump or bump exactly co-incident with the downwind parallax compliance cue. Most don't and that is also true of the Falco. From a height of 300M QFE, with zero roll, the cross over point of the bracing wires overlays the track line which is 1.4 miles distant. To achieve 1.5 miles baseline stand off from the landing runway while downwind we track the bracing wire X cross just below the landing runway to achieve the necessary head up parallax compliance. Extreme precision is not required, but we must (train to) 'fly the landing runway' into that 'parallax compliance picture' using minimum roll and then sustain that parallax compliance with zero roll applied.

From a height (not altitude) of 300M (1000 feet) QFE our goal is to achieve and then sustain the parallax compliance above, *at zero roll*. This delivers the compliant 1.5 miles baseline stand off as we proceed downwind, (or anywhere versus any line feature), at a height of 300M = 1000 feet QFE. Whether WW2 compliant lateral stand off range of 1.5 miles from the landing runway places us inside or outside the airfield boundary just depends on how big the airfield is.

We must always achieve this zero roll parallax compliance before we track downwind abeam the touchdown zone. In the screen grab above we have achieved downwind parallax compliance with time to spare. We have increased traction to 2400 GIRI. Our heading is irrelevant. A compliant circuit *tracks* parallel to the landing runway. Head up parallax compliance removes drift to deliver a compliant track at the compliant stand off range. We look at the landing runway, *not* a gyro or magnetic compass. We fly the *visual* circuit head up, not head down. Only instrument approaches are flown head down looking at gauges. We fly a compliant track not a 'this will only work in nil wind heading' which matches the runway heading as we drift down a different track.

Learning to achieve head up parallax compliance is a very basic and essential flight simulation skill. It is pilot error to fail to achieve that parallax compliance before (while) tracking abeam the touchdown zone parallel to the landing runway.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts fly ridiculously variable circuit patterns which take far too long to complete and whose stand off is at such great distance that the pattern is incompatible with 'poor' visibility. In order to remain in sight of the runway as we turn base in 'poor' visibility' we must track 'close in' while downwind.

EN ROUTE VFR compliance.

At zero roll, at a height of 300M, all tracks inboard from the parallax compliance point pictured above are less than 1.5 miles <> 9000 feet <> 2700M distant. Everything outboard is further away. We can measure the range of *anything* using that parallax compliance cue. That is a crucial VFR skill, but many flight simulation enthusiasts acquire no VFR pilotage skills at all, even after thousands of hours of flight simulator use.

It should be obvious that if we are, (by reference to map contours or known spot heights), instead cruising at 3000M QFE (ten times higher) above the relevant scenery then the same line feature will instead have a baseline distance of 15 miles <> 27 kilometres. Many flight simulation enthusiasts never learn how to measure the range or glideslope to anything in the scenery and (by definition) never acquire any VFR skills at all.

Being a passenger on a fairground ride in model aeroplanes of different shape and colour is not a skill, and it's not even much of a hobby!

Imposing parallax compliance to impose compliant stand off range *and* compliant glideslope is a very basic piloting skill that we must achieve to succeed in flight simulation. Head up (VFR) flight is not less precise than head down (IFR) flight. It simply substitutes precise visual range and glideslope evaluation for precise electronic evaluation of range and glideslope. The only way a human can measure significant range visually is by using parallax relationships, whether with a device created for that purpose, (such as a gun sight / range-finder), or any other object whose parallax the human has learned to adapt for that purpose. It is just one more aviation skill that we must (train to) achieve in order to succeed in the hobby of flight simulation.

Even if we only learn that single downwind parallax cue for a given aeroplane we can use it to measure any stand off range if we know our altitude and the altitude of the external object of reference (from our map or chart). The difference is our height above that scenery. Whilst held in parallax compliance, its baseline range is always about nine times our height above it. Wandering around in a flight simulator without a map or chart which we can use to establish terrain altitude is childish. If the map or chart we are using does not provide contours and spot heights we must use the altitude of nearby airfields to evaluate the altitude of the nearby terrain. VFR flight plans should not be 'auto created'. They must contain more information than IFR plans. Instead of the frequencies of beacons we need 'spot heights' of scenery we will recognise so that we can always evaluate our *height* as well as our altitude. Our height = our altitude minus scenery altitude.

Aviation is full of 'threats' which we must avoid. If we must avoid a bridge with heavy flak defences, or a busy modern airfield, or a nature reserve, laterally by five miles, (instead of 1.5 above) then always provided the baseline visibility exceeds five miles, so long as we fly at a relative height of;

1000 feet * 5 miles / 1.5 miles = 3300 feet = 1000 meters! (QFE)

and we keep the external object of reference 'under the downwind parallax compliance cue', (at zero roll), as we pass by the 'threat' to the beam, we achieve compliant (5 mile) head up avoidance (using VFR pilotage), and our detour from the great circle track we planned, but must deviate from for 'obstacle / threat' avoidance along the way, is no larger than it needs to be, and squanders no fuel. To avoid the same threat by ten miles we can use the same parallax compliance cue from a height (not altitude) of 2000M, and so on.…….

In each and every case the glideslope to the object of external reference that we are imposing is identical. Compliant operation of any aeroplane requires us to place our aeroplane at a defined range on a defined glideslope from something or other all of the time. It is a skill we must be able to demonstrate to ourselves, else we are just pretending to fly aeroplanes while taking a fairground ride.

In the illustration above we are in tactical cruise power at 1000M QFE while maintaining a baseline distance of just under 9Km = 5 miles standoff from the coastline. Consequently 7.5cm Flak in the next coastal town will have no lethal fire control solution, but 8.8 cm Flak might. In the modern world homeland security issues may require us to always avoid a nuclear power station by five miles laterally (baseline) instead. Or maybe just a nature reserve or a busy airfield. We use the same head up parallax compliance doctrine. No electronics or gauges of any kind are required to position aeroplanes precisely in 4D, only head up VFR parallax compliance, everywhere and all of the time. In each case we are also intercepting / sustaining a precise 9 to 1 glideslope to the external object of parallax reference.

However in the Falco we must remember that our beam parallax reference is not at 90 degrees to the datum from our eyepoint. In the jpg above we flying a track that will pass five miles abeam the outskirts of the next town, but we are currently more than five miles distant.

Provided we learn the skills of height keeping, (*not altitude keeping*), we can determine our range (*and glideslope*) from anything in the scenery by varying our height above it and measuring *not guessing* with the compliant parallax cue in this aircraft type, which we must always learn during type conversion. In real life we often need to navigate x miles abeam a 'threat' before we resume navigation to the waypoint we really wanted to proceed towards. IFR electronics in the form of gauges or GPS are *not* required, provided visibility is good enough, and cloud base is high enough, to achieve head up parallax compliance. VFR pilotage is not possible otherwise. The measurement is always made with zero roll applied, but in practice it is not particularly difficult to fly a 'DME' arc around any object in the scenery without benefit of DME. We only need to obtain the skills of pilotage by visual reference to the surface. If we do not study them and we do not learn them we can never achieve VFR compliance What constitutes compliance varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from time to time, but the compliance skills are universal and invariant.

During VFR flight we must divert if we encounter weather in which the visibility falls below the doctrinal or legal minimum for our sortie. We must constantly measure the current visibility.

If you look very closely at the jpg above you can still just see the coastline and the next town. If we are at a height of 1000M QFE above the external object of parallax reference and we cannot see the scenery at the 9 to 1 baseline stand-off parallax cue then visibility has deteriorated below 5 miles. We are required to measure this continuously and abort our sortie accordingly, not wildly guess what the current visibility is, or simply ignore what the current visibility is!

Flight simulation is all about the captaincy decision making cycle, much of which is driven by changes in the weather, whatever type of aeroplane we are operating and regardless of whether we are complying with the VFR or the IFR.

By definition any type of visual approach always requires the skills of visual pilotage. Flight simulation is demonstration of compliant flight in a virtual environment. To succeed in the hobby of flight simulation first we must learn what constitutes compliance and then we must learn the skills of compliance. Whatever aeroplane we are flying we should always be aware of any and all easy to use parallax compliance cues as well as its mandatory compliance cues.

The Visual Flight Rules do not say 'go where you like when you like, ignore the current weather, and pretend you are the only user of the airspace', in wartime or otherwise. Artillery ranges use airspace, nature reserves use airspace, airfields use airspace. Airspace is not ours to wander through as we see fit. The VFR require us to skilfully separate ourselves from all other aeroplanes *and* a whole slew of specified scenery in 4D, just like the Instrument Flight Rules.

That requirement is neither mysterious, nor particularly difficult to understand or achieve. We choose how far apart our landmarks and line features are in a VFR flight plan. We make that choice based on the weather (visibility and cloud base) today and our current skill level. Newly qualified real world amateur pilots must demonstrate that they can achieve long distance pilotage in a visibility of only five miles (depicted above) and that is a reasonable skill for flight simulation enthusiasts to also target over the very long term. However we must plan VFR pilotage sorties based on our *current* skill level. VFR skills all start with learning the skills of circuit (and later attack) pattern parallax compliance. Without those elementary building blocks of skill no progress can be made and flight simulation is forever just a merry go round or roller coaster fairground ride in little model aeroplanes of different shape and colour over which we fail to exert control.

Flight simulation is so much more than that!

Now reconsider why weather was such a limiting factor for aircraft without wireless navigation during WW2. Five miles (nine kilometres) is not particularly bad visibility but it may prevent VFR navigational compliance which requires timely identification of targets and avoidance of threats by specified margins using parallax compliance. By never attempting to operate aircraft in marginal visibility most MSFS users fail to make progress in the hobby of flight simulation,

During a compliant visual circuit at 300M QFE the 9 to 1 parallax compliance cue places us only 2700M <> 1.5 miles abeam the landing runway at 300M QFE (1000 feet). Consequently it is reasonably easy to fly a fully compliant visual circuit pattern when the visibility is only 5 miles, even though VFR cross country pilotage at greater height in that visibility may be beyond our current pilotage skills. We must learn step by step and we must begin by learning circuit pattern compliance, first in good visibility and later using a self imposed visibility of five miles (9 Km).

We may need to include timed legs in a VFR flight plan, during which no recognisable landmark or line feature is in sight. That next landmark or line feature may be the landing runway or anything else we choose, Interception Point (IP) by Interception Point, and in some cases Descent Point by Descent Point. We must (train to) develop the skill of parallax compliance and that skill begins with learning to fly a compliant real world circuit pattern around our home airfield, in place of a random video game fairground ride in a little radio control model of an aeroplane.

Remember parallax compliance is only possible when using 3D (Virtual Cockpit) display mode inside any desk top flight simulator. The process requires us to use the whole of the aeroplane to measure compliance. A 2D display environment lacks the necessary parallax compliance and is useful (only) for IFR training. VFR (head up flight) pilotage requires a carefully designed virtual 3D aeroplane, within which the 3D 'virtual cockpit' environment is a necessity, but that VC is not the only accurate 3D component needed to deliver real world parallax compliance in all directions, and at any and every simulation zoom factor. Don't waste time using 2D training environments (panels) unless you are training to achieve only IFR skills.

PLAN-G.

The skills of pilotage (pioneer era navigation) are explained at greater length in the 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.calclassic.com/tutorials;

There is no excuse for not installing an integrated mousable *freeware* VFR flight planner and world wide on screen VFR sectional multi mode mapping system with spot heights, (and airspace reservations); since the necessary system (Plan-G) is available free from;

http://www.tasoftware.co.uk/

and is very easy to install and configure. That freeware, (when used in free tracking mode, not synchronised video game cheat mode), is the ideal MSFS integrated mapping software for planning and flying the hundred or more realistic Fiat C.R.42 missions described in the supplied history. Spot heights can be obtained from radio beacons as well as airfields en route, however Plan-G selectable Google maps also provide contours!

Download it. Install it. Test it. Learn to use it. You will be glad you did.

VISUAL PATTERN.

In many cases the Visual Flight Rules mandate 'flight by visual reference to the surface'. That means what it says. During head up flight we need to *see* where the aeroplane is going next, not just use parallax compliance to achieve complaint stand off range from objects or line features to the beam. During VFR flight *we* are responsible for avoiding air to air collisions, all of the time. If ATC are not providing IFR separation, and have not taken over 4D navigation of our aircraft to do so, and we have elected to achieve compliant VFR separation from other aircraft, (under the current rules for the current location), we need to see what lies ahead on our flight path vector!

Consequently in real life *and during flight simulation* we cannot enter or execute the circuit pattern at random IAS, with random angle of attack, and random aircraft pitch, in a random variable geometry state, at random stand off from the runway, yet that is all that many flight simulation enthusiasts ever manage to achieve. We must not allow a pretty model aeroplane to take us for a fairground ride, unable to see what lies ahead without invoking some video game cheat mode or other.

Flaps exist to allow pilots to control aircraft pitch independently from profile drag (IAS). In aeroplanes which have no flaps our pitch at compliant and safe circuit pattern IAS may be so high that aircraft ahead in the pattern, and in low visibility also the horizon ahead, are hidden behind the nose of the aeroplane. Falco pitch at 220 KmIAS is only just over two degrees, but the seating position is so far aft in the aeroplane and the cluttered biplane design so bad that the structure ahead becomes a substantial obstruction. From time to time in the visual circuit pattern we must dip and raise the nose to make sure that the aircraft only 30 seconds in front of us in the landing sequence is also flying a fully compliant 4D circuit pattern and that our 30 second (half mile at 200 KmIAS = 120 KIAS) spacing is not being compromised by his or our incompetent 4D pilotage.

CROSSWIND PARALLAX COMPLIANCE.

Where and how we join a circuit pattern returning from a combat mission flown in a large formation is less precise than in modern civilian practice. We join with appropriate spacing behind the aeroplane who was briefed or cleared to approach one ahead of us in the landing sequence. In practice in MSFS we will 'join downwind' only if our skills allow us to achieve the required (and illustrated above) parallax compliance very quickly, and always well before we are abeam the touchdown point of the landing runway.

If we lack those skills we must join on the 'dead side' of the airfield, (opposite the downwind leg), proceeding in the opposite direction along an upwind leg and then we must fly a crosswind leg to turn downwind 'just in time' to achieve the required 1.5 mile downwind baseline stand off.

This requires us to cross over the airfield to its 'dead side' *above* pattern altitude, and then fly an abbreviated upwind leg in order to achieve pattern altitude (300M = 1000 feet QFE) before we reach the middle of the crosswind leg. The rest of the visual pattern is flown at 300M = 1000ft QFE. It is acceptable to cross the airfield well above 600M QFE, sustaining 220 KmIAS, so long as we reach 300M QFE at 220 KmIAS before we are abeam the landing runway on our crosswind leg. If the cloud base is 500M QFE we may cross to the dead side at only 450M QFE. Note that in the diagram above the crosswind leg is flown close to the upwind end of the runway in use, whilst the base leg is offset from the downwind (landing) end by a significant and compliant margin.

In real life we use the crosswind leg to establish pattern spacing. Our required WW2 approach interval is 30 seconds <> half a mile at 220 KmIAS <> 120 KIAS <> 120 KTS <.> two miles per minute. We are following the Falco briefed to land before us and if we turned crosswind to follow his track it is unlikely the spacing would be half a mile. We turn from dead side to crosswind either inside, or outside, the track of the aircraft ahead of us in the landing sequences to delay or catch up to create the compliant landing interval (30 seconds <> 0.5 miles @ 220 KmIAS). We decide when to turn from dead side to crosswind while looking at an external object of parallax reference. Inside MSFS we have no other Falco to achieve a compliant landing interval against so we must concentrate on flying a fully complaint circuit to make it easy for the virtual Falco always behind us to achieve his landing interval.

Inside MSFS we track crosswind at right angles to the relevant airfield boundary, at any reasonable distance we choose outside that airfield boundary. In a Falco we aim to track the lower wing tip just outside the upwind airfield boundary. This allows the Falco behind us to turn sooner to track his wing tip inside the boundary if he needs to catch up, or to track outside us without losing sight of the airfield boundary in poor visibility. The lower our current skill level the more time we will need to achieve the downwind parallax compliance already illustrated, and the more room we must give ourselves by passing wider abeam the airfield on this crosswind leg. Crosswind compliance is easier than downwind compliance because we are free to vary stand off range to match our current level of skill. All the time we were on the dead side, of the mandatory left hand circuit, and now while we are crosswind we monitor the runway in use and we ensure that no (AI) traffic is departing into conflict with our current crosswind leg.

Since the Falco has no canopy and since the pilot seat is very far aft it has no parallax compliance cue for initiating the downwind turn. That IP becomes a timed event at the end of a timed leg. In a Falco we must note when our cockpit passes abeam the upwind end of the landing runway, and we must achieve 220 KmIAS before that happens. Knowing that we are then travelling at about two miles per minute we use the cockpit clock (or our wristwatch) to time when to initiate the 90 degree turn which will place us 1.5 miles abeam the landing runway as we track downwind. In the Falco the clock is inconveniently placed on the right hand side console, but we only need to glance at it briefly.

We are flying the crosswind leg, close abeam and at 90 degrees to the landing runway, at 220 KmIAS, at a height of 300M (QFE), with zero roll. Our heading is different every day because the crosswind is different every day. We use parallax compliance to track parallel to the airfield boundary. As we go abeam the landing runway we must note the position of the second hand on the cockpit clock. We monitor our parallax compliance and continue to tally any traffic departing the runway in use and towards us., but every so often we also monitor progression of the second hand on our cockpit clock. In any aeroplane progressing at about two miles per minute we initiate the turn to downwind 20 to 25 seconds and three quarters of a mile later.

We initiate the downwind turn with just over 15 degrees of bank when the landing runway is 20 to 25 seconds, and therefore about 0.75 miles, behind our cockpit.

This is a very primitive aeroplane. Most Falco variants have no artificial horizon and no means to measure bank other than parallax compliance. We measure about 15 degrees bank by rolling the forward inboard wing strut attachment onto the horizon (with VSI =zero).

Our timing does not need to be second perfect since in real weather, with variable wind vector, this cross wind compliance 'picture' and timing won't deliver subsequent down wind compliance 'perfectly', but the result should require only small roll angles of bank for correction downwind to achieve the required and already illustrated downwind parallax compliance before we pass abeam our touchdown point on the downwind leg. The compliant bank angle, (just over 15 degrees) as depicted above), is matched to the compliant profile drag (220 KmIAS) at which we fly the WW2 visual pattern. Both together initiated at the correct time will deliver downwind 1.5 mile baseline compliance. With 15 degrees of bank applied at 220 KmIAS our radius of turn is a further three quarters of a mile (in any aeroplane).

Learning to achieve and sustain parallax compliance, and learning to set up the next parallax compliance using a timed leg, are essential building blocks for more complex flight simulation goals. Demonstration of compliant flight is in most cases little more than demonstration of the ability to position our aeroplane very precisely versus the scenery in 4D. Without that most basic skill of pilotage, flight simulation is impossible. Once we can achieve parallax compliance on demand we are ready to use specific parallax relationships during the captaincy decision making cycle.

Combat flight simulation enthusiasts who lack the skill of *pilotage* to position themselves visually five miles abeam defined en route scenery, or 1.5 miles abeam defined scenery, on a specific course without significant difficulty have made little progress at all in the hobby of flight simulation. That skill is the basic skill on which all other skills of pilotage are based. Once we learn how to measure and impose range using parallax, we have already learned how to measure and impose our glideslope using parallax, and then we must also learn how to measure range using an altimeter while flying a known glideslope. This tutorial will explain all of the skills that are required to achieve elementary pilotage of (combat) aircraft.

Flight simulation is the skill of positioning aeroplanes compliantly in 4D in a virtual environment. Before the modern era pilots could not depend on gauges and electronic devices to achieve that elementary skill. Prior to modern era simulation we must be able to position ourselves accurately versus any scenery. anywhere, outbound, en route, and inbound, using nothing but a stopwatch and the learned parallax compliance cues for the aeroplane in question.

Just pretending to fly aeroplanes in video games is not at all the same thing as demonstrating the skills of real world pilotage compliance in that real aeroplane in a virtual environment. Flight simulators exist to allow us to actually learn those real world skills, for a specific aeroplane, instead of just pretending they are not needed and do not exist.

GLIDESLOPE versus FINAL APPROACH TRACK

In a visual circuit pattern we always intercept the approach glideslope long before we intercept the final approach track (FAT). In WW2 combat aircraft we plan to intercept the approach glideslope while downwind and tracking 180 degrees away from the touchdown zone.

During a WW2 visual circuit we intercept the glideslope as blue turns to red in the diagram above. We do not maintain circuit height on base leg.

During the open cockpit, flapless biplane pioneer era of aviation history the accepted operating doctrine was a stable thrust approach with the throttle fully closed ( a glide approach). VSI = glideslope was controlled using beta (sideslip) drag initiated by operating the aeroplane with aileron and rudder opposed at very low IAS. This requires very considerable judgement of when to close the throttle and initiate the descending base leg and very precise control over IAS and VSI using only slip angle to sustain the necessary glideslope which is different in every wind condition. The supplied Falco flight dynamics will allow that technique of course, (from a tighter pioneer era WW1 circuit), but it will be beyond the ability of most MSFS users.

Pioneer era technique often assumed an entire airfield smooth enough and sufficiently obstacle free for into wind landing anywhere within the airfield boundary, rather than on defined, boulder cleared, and bomb crater free, marked runways. It was otherwise incompatible with achieving the necessary runway utilisation rate with 30 second landing interval as a large formation returned from a combat mission, once the landing runway had finite and defined boundaries. While operating the C.R.42 within MSFS we will instead apply the vintage era doctrine of targeting an aircraft specific complaint glideslope, using throttle to sustain that defined glideslope, and elevator (trim) to target and sustain target IAS.

After the pioneer era, in aeroplanes much better designed than the Falco, pilots controlled pitch independently from glideslope using flap. In the Falco which embodies only pioneer era technology, we are denied that opportunity. As we reduce IAS, because we have no flaps to disassociate pitch from glideslope, wing angle of attack will increase, fuselage pitch will increase equally, and in order to achieve parallax compliance, (in order to see where the aeroplane is going), we must once again get our goggles down and our head out of the always and necessarily open cockpit.

BASE LEG (is curved in agile combat aeroplanes).

We note the TIME when we go abeam our touchdown zone with a displacement of 1.5 miles. It is just another precise 4D head up Interception Point (IP), quickly followed by just another Descent Point (DP).

The procedure is identical to the timed leg from Crosswind compliance to downwind turn. If we wish our base leg to be 1.5 miles baseline from the touchdown zone the time interval is identical and the required bank angle at 220 KmIAS is identical. There are no judgements to be made. We learn a procedure that works everywhere in many, many different aeroplanes and we repeat, repeat, repeat. Once we are truly 90 degrees abeam our touchdown zone at a baseline range of 1.5 miles, just as we did on the crosswind leg,, we must use the cockpit clock on the right side console to time progress to our descent point (DP), at which we will once again also roll on the compliant just over 15 degrees of left bank. We roll the inboard upper wing strut attachment to the horizon to establish the required parallax compliance, to establish the bank angle that causes our turn diameter to be 1.5 miles at 220 KmIAS while flying 1.5 miles abeam the runway. We do not need to guess what will work in any aeroplane, and we do not need to calculate what will work in any aeroplane. All aeroplanes have the same turn rate and diameter at the same velocity at the same bank angle. What we need to know is how to measure 1.5 miles and 15 degrees of bank.

However in the circuit pattern at 9 to 1 stand off, and thus at 2700M <> 1.5 miles, from a height (not altitude) of 300M, *during type conversion training only* our base turn and descent point should be a full sixty seconds after the IP, (after we truly go abeam the touchdown zone at 1.5 miles baseline range).

At first we should practice head up VFR compliance in perfect visibility, but eventually we must (train to) acquire the skill to recover from combat missions with visibility down to 3 miles and with a cloud base of just over 300M (AGL). We must train in slowly worse and worse user applied weather until we can fly compliant circuits in a visibility of 'only' 3 miles. Professional pilots are required to fly 'circle to land procedures' *head up* in much worse visibility, but 3 miles and 300M (1000 feet) cloud base around the destination airfield is a reasonable skill target for flight simulator enthusiasts to aim for in the very long run during 'near runway operations'.

At the 'descent point' where we initiate base leg we initiate descent *with throttle* as we roll on *15 degrees of bank* with stick,

In 'WW2 combat aircraft' we will *not* normally fly a modern era 'square ended' final approach pattern depicted above. Our track from downwind to final is a continuous descending curve initiated where the illustration above turns red (as we intercept the glideslope still tracking 180 degree away from the final approach track (FAT).

We do *not* apply elevator or alter trim. Our profile drag target remains 220 KmIAS. We have no reason to move the elevators or re-trim. They control our profile drag (IAS) not our glideslope (VSI), We let the aeroplane sustain its Newtonian equilibrium. We trimmed for 220 KmIAS long, long before and our Falco will descend at 220 KmIAS when we remove power. We just decide how much power to remove to achieve our target Vertical Speed Increment (VSI). The compliant power reduction is easy to apply but complex to explain so we will examine the explanation a few sections below.

We fly a continuously curved WW2 approach with just over 15 degrees of bank applied all the way through 180 degrees from downwind to final approach track (FAT). If we sustain => 15 degrees of bank throughout the turn, and we sustain 220 KmIAS throughout the turn, then the diameter of the turn will be about 2700M <> 1.5 miles and after reversing course we will be 'more or less' lined up with the FAT. In practice, (in real weather and due to our failure to achieve exactly 15 degrees bank and exactly 220 KmIAS), we vary roll slightly to more or less bank as we near the FAT to achieve the FAT. That gentle 180 degree turn has then been flown at about 2.2 degrees/second and takes about 80 seconds.

The earlier ninety degree turn from cross wind to downwind at the same bank angle (15 degrees) and same profile drag (IAS = 220 KmIAS) had a radius of about 1350M (0.75 miles) and took about 40 seconds, but we were already 1350M (0.75 miles) beyond the upwind end of the runway when we rolled to achieve a compliant downwind stand off of 2700M <> 1.5 miles <> 9000 feet.

Delaying base turn (our descent point = DP) until 60 seconds after abeam our touchdown point (over our IP) *during type conversion training* causes us to *initiate base turn and descent together* about 3700M ( 2 miles) further downwind after going abeam the touchdown zone, and in nil wind after turning (reversing course) 180 degrees at constant IAS, we will also intercept the FAT about 3700M (2 miles) from touchdown having proceeded down wind at about 60 m/s <> 120 KTS for 60 seconds before reversing course. This procedure keeps us within 3 miles of our touchdown zone and is therefore compatible with a visibility of only 3 miles, while allowing as the maximum time to achieve all of our compliance targets.

During type conversion training we need more time to achieve our operating targets. It takes us longer to progress the aeroplane from each complaint IAS target and each complaint VSI or glideslope target to the next. It is always our job as captain to ensure that the time available to achieve our operating targets is sufficient versus our current skill level. As captain we must ensure the cloud base and visibility are compatible with the time we need to achieve our operating targets at our current skill level. While we are undertaking type conversion training we wish to intercept the FAT two miles from touchdown and so we proceed two miles beyond the touchdown zone before we commence our 180 degree (course reversal) base turn at constant IAS = 220 KmIAS. We roll out of that base turn on the FAT with two miles to go, still at 220 KmIAS, and those two miles on the FAT give us the extra time we need to achieve glideslope and IAS = Vref compliance in a pioneer era aeroplane with no flaps while we are still undertaking type conversion training.

Whenever we initiate our base turn to interception of the FAT it takes about 80 seconds to reverse course. For reasons explained shortly we wish to lose 100M of our 300M height during those 80 seconds of course reversal. So as we roll on the compliant bank to initiate base leg, at the complaint 220 KmIAS, we throttle the engine to deliver about minus 1.5 metre/sec VSI. Our profile drag has been 220 KmIAS since before we joined the circuit. We have not re-trimmed since then and elevators are not involved in gentle descending turns at constant IAS. We control height (glideslope) only with throttle (boost). We control bank with aileron. We control slip with rudder. We have already controlled profile drag (IAS) with elevator trim. Nothing is random. Nothing is just some nonsense made up on the spur of the moment, and nothing *needs* to be different in most other types of WW2 combat aeroplane!

FLYING 'BY THE BOOK' = REALISM.

Flying a Fiat C.R.42 compliantly is just a series of simple steps, provided we develop the intention to succeed in keeping aeroplanes under control, instead of the intention to fail. Letting a pretty model aeroplane take us for a fairground ride at random IAS, with random boost and random RPM, along a random 4D path through space and time is not the same thing as keeping that aeroplane under control. It is the opposite even if the fairground ride in a little model aeroplane eventually ends up where it started. A roller coast ride always ends up where it started, but the passengers exert no control.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts fail to learn their operating targets, and fail to sequence their operating targets. Consequently they try to evaluate (or just guess) in real time compliance criteria they should have simply learned. Their evaluation of the outputs they must achieve is poor and their ability to impose those inaccurately evaluated outputs using the complaint inputs is poor. A random fairground ride develops which has no 'realism' at all.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts make poor judgements and must continually correct prior mistakes. We must instead (train to) create and impose the TIME needed to succeed in taking the real aeroplane for a compliant ride on our terms in a virtual environment. Having learned what constitutes compliance, we sequence each profile drag (IAS) change, and each VSI (glideslope) change over an *extended time period* which we impose so that nothing is rushed or chaotic, and no unnecessary mistakes need to be corrected. We must (train to) learn our operating targets, instead of pretending we have the skill to work out what they are in real time, and we must (train to) sequence them correctly, and we must (train to) sequence them over the time scale we personally need to achieve them at our current level of skill.

 INVARIANT COMPLIANCE requires KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS) doctrine.

The key to successful aircraft operation is invariant compliance. We must not allow things to vary, either trip to trip, or place to place, or in many cases even aeroplane to aeroplane. Minus 1 metres/sec (= minus 200 ft/min) is the same everywhere and in all aeroplanes. 60 seconds is the same everywhere and in all aeroplanes. 300M (1000 feet) height and 1.5 miles stand off range is the same everywhere and in all (relevant) aeroplanes. The trick is to (train to) impose *invariant* compliance *everywhere* and in all relevant aeroplanes. In order to keep workload low enough to succeed, we must avoid the need to calculate anything, and we must avoid the need to make any decisions during high workload phases of any flight! We just repeat, repeat, repeat, what we have slowly learned to do really well and already know will work.

We must (train to) just repeat things we know how to do really well through practice, practice, practice. That is how real pilots succeed. They learn what actually works. Then they choose and use a specific version of what actually works that involves only simple numbers that are easy to remember and apply. They learn what parallax compliance looks like (each picture). Then they make sure they give themselves time to 'get the picture' and never 'lose the picture'. 'The picture' is the same in Sicily and Greece, and Libya, and Iraq. VSI = 1 m/s and 60 seconds and 1.5 miles are the same everywhere and in every aeroplane even if different nationalities measure identical invariant parallax compliance in different units.

The whole point of VFR parallax compliance is that it has no 'units'. It's just a picture.

Parallax compliance is an invariant 'picture' with no units of measurement. It is only available during flight simulation if we employ a pure 3D environment (VC mode) from within an accurate entire 3D model (MDL) all parts of which are visible or obscured correctly from the eyepoint assigned by the developer.

Attack patterns and circuit patterns are not places where we make calculations and complex decisions. We are too busy achieving learned and invariant parallax compliance. We place the aeroplane into its compliant profile drag state *before* we enter the pattern, and then we just fly the aeroplane into a 'picture' which we have trained ourselves to recognise, whether to the beam head up and goggles up, with out head against the provided head rest to deliver the invariant parallax compliance cue we need , or looking ahead with head out and goggles down, or head up and goggles up through the reflector sight. Many flight simulator enthusiasts allow things to vary from one flight to the next as though it did not matter. By definition they fail to achieve flight simulation realism.

The goal of flight simulation is to achieve invariant compliance = realism. Realism is nothing more than learning and then demonstrating the skill to comply with the real procedures. Realistic flight dynamics do not deliver realism. They only unlock the possibility. It is the consumer who has to learn what constitutes compliance and then practice. Practice, practice until they can demonstrate compliance..

VFR compliance is not a location or aeroplane dependent variable. The object of the exercise (the purpose of flight simulators) is to allow us to (train to) achieve parallax compliance everywhere we fly and in every aeroplane we fly with no variation at all. Otherwise we are using a flight simulator as a fairground ride simulator!

The way real pilots (train to) operate aeroplanes is not the difficult way. It is the easy way. Many flight simulator enthusiasts seem to assume that 'realism' is either something they can download, or something they could not emulate. Neither is true. Realism is simply flying aeroplanes the easy way, which is the real way, because it is the easy way. The easy way is to vary as little as possible from one flight to the next and one aeroplane to the next. The real world procedures are the easy procedures else they would be different!

The all pervading mistake many flight simulation enthusiasts make is supposing that making up nonsense procedures and trying to fly those nonsense procedures will be 'easier' than learning the real ones, but that is always wrong. The real procedure is the one that is easy to apply, time and time again, in any relevant weather, everywhere, in every relevant aeroplane, and the real procedure is the procedure that real(istic) flight dynamics are designed to achieve. Constantly trying to make aeroplanes (flight dynamics) do things they were never designed to achieve during flight simulation is both dumb and difficult.

The issue is not one aeroplane versus another or one place versus another. What a flight simulator exists to demonstrate is one pilot's ability to achieve invariant compliance, versus another pilot's ability to achieve invariant compliance, with real world compliance criteria, within and outside combat.

Real (amateur student) pilots succeed quickly because they make the effort to learn what invariant compliance is, what it looks like, and how to repeat it, time after time, after time. They do not waste time guessing (or even calculating) what will work, then finding out it won't, and they are not forever correcting wild guesses and self imposed mistakes that didn't work. Real student pilots make the effort to just *learn what will work* and how to *measure their compliance*.

Real student pilots are disciplined about allowing themselves the time they need to fly the aeroplane into 'the picture' at their current level of skill. During type conversion training we need more time to fly a new aeroplane type into the many parallax pictures of invariant compliance we must train ourselves to impose. Most flight simulation enthusiasts would enjoy flight simulation more if they trained to do the same. Realism is something that flight simulation enthusiasts must study and train hard to achieve. It is not something they can download, but neither is realism unobtainable. Flight simulation realism is just a consumer intention that most consumers never develop and never attempt, while asking where they can download it!

 ELEVATOR TRIM AUTHORITY.

When using 'realistic' flight dynamics we must not confuse our human control authority with that of the trim tabs. Many MSFS flight dynamics authors make the mistake of always coding trim tabs which can cause full control surface deflection at every IAS. In general, in real life, at low profile drag (IAS) over the control surface, full deflection of the tab cannot cause full deflection of the control surface, even though the pilot (we) can using the joystick to invoke the rest of the available motion from the control surface.

The elevator trim authority of the C.R.42 is limited so that full elevator up trim demands IAS = Vref = 150 KmIAS. Elevator trim cannot control pitch. It only ever demands a specific profile drag = IAS. During cruise we simply demand with elevator trim the profile drag (IAS) which prevents climb or descent at current thrust. That IAS will vary as fuel is burned. During patrol we trim for 220 KmIAS. Consequently we trim patrol flight using trickle reduction of fuel flow with the GAS (throttle) lever as fuel burns away, always sustaining 220 KmIAS. Circuit pattern trim is identical to patrol trim in the C.R.42, and is used gain in the attack pattern which we shall study later.

Open cockpit biplanes with aft pilot seating positions and no flaps require a 'head out' technique during approach. We reduce to Vref early and we attempt to fly a stable approach (the exact opposite of a piston propliner with flaps). This is rendered easy if the real world FD author, (as well as the MSFS FD author), limits the authority of the elevator tabs to demanding Vref at full deflection. Falco landing weight hardly varies so Vref hardly varies and is treated as 150 KmIAS at all weights. Once we trim accordingly (maximum cabrare) the aeroplane auto seeks Vref = 150 KmIAS allowing us to concentrate on achieving our VSI or glideslope targets with throttle and the FAT with aileron. In late model C.R.42s no ASI is visible during the approach if we need to avoid obstacles right of the approach. Having never learned how to control IAS with elevator trim, or how to control glidslope with throttle, the idea of having no ASI terrifies many otherwise experienced flight simulation enthusiasts. We must remember that Italian WW1 biplanes like the Ansaldos had no ASI at all, and that many real Falco pilots had flown all of their advanced flying training approaches in aeroplanes with no ASI at all. If the idea of flying an approach head up and head out terrifies you then download and learn to fly approaches in the Ansaldo S.V.A.5 just like real Falco pilots. Head up flight does not use gauges to measure compliance and because many FS enthusiasts become reliant on gauges they never learn head up flight and consequently fail to cope with head out flight in flapless biplanes.

In combat aircraft trim authority was 'usually' restricted to that which the pilot could overcome 'fairly easily' using brute strength within the responsive IAS range and at low IAS the pilot had more authority than the tabs. During a stable (flapless) approach we cause the aeroplane to achieve Vref early, and having trimmed for Vref early, we do not meddle with trim again, and we do not override that trim with the joystick. We have a compliant glideslope to sustain on the FAT and in a pioneer era aircraft, having established constant IAS, and thereby constant aircraft pitch, we measure glideslope using parallax compliance. We control glideslope using throttle, never elevator, never elevator trim.

SINK is not STALL.

We will examine weapons training skills in detail later, but for the time being notice that where the fixed guns are pointing (the gun vector) is hardly ever where the aeroplane is going. The harder we pull the elevators up to increase G applied, the higher the angle of attack we induce, and the more flight path vector is below the gun vector. Equally pulling the joystick aft, to point the fixed gun (sight line) above the next ridge line does *not* mean that the aeroplane (flight path vector = glideslope) is not descending into the terrain below that ridge line. Aeroplanes can easily descend nose up.

On approach to land in a flapless biplane the gun sight vector is always far above the touchdown point, but the flight path vector (glideslope) is nevertheless proceeding to collision with the touchdown zone. Aeroplanes *sink* nose up just fine. Inducing sink is very easy to do. When flight simulation enthusiasts induce sink unintentionally they often claim that the aeroplane stalled even though it was nowhere near stalling.

Swept wing jets and flapless biplanes must fly stable nose high approaches, sinking nose up down a stable glideslope, already established at Vref and already trimmed for Vref. This doctrine (the stable approach) is the opposite to that which is appropriate to a piston propliner such as a Convair Liner when we vary flap geometry, IAS targets and trim right down to the very low height at which we decide how much flap we will use for the landing.

Within MSFS while flying the flapless Falco we will establish a stable approach while still at substantial height, and we will use throttle to sustain the compliant glideslope which we shall study in more detail shortly.

Vmin is not Vs.

First we must (train to) understand the difference between any aeroplane's minimum sustainable (without sinking) profile drag (IAS = Vmin) and the (much) lower profile drag at which streamline flow over the wing breaks down and becomes turbulent causing the aeroplane to depart controlled flight = stall (IAS = Vs). Vmin (when sink is invoked) is always greater than Vs (at which stall is invoked), and may be much greater. During early type conversion training (in any aeroplane) we must (train to) determine Vmin. We must take the Falco up to medium level and determine the value of Vmin = the minimum IAS for VSI = 0 . We must note how much pressione (boost) is required. While testing Vmin we should test the limits of aileron authority. Depending on IAS we may, or may not, be able to prevent roll with aileron alone while we prevent sink with throttle.

Sinking and stalling are not the only ways to lose control of an aeroplane's flight path. The minimum (directional) control IAS (Vmc) theoretically may be above Vmin which is well above Vs with all engines running. Applying enough boost to prevent sink may easily generate enough torque to overcome full aileron at very low IAS in some aeroplanes. Vmc is not an issue only in multi engined aircraft that have suffered engine failure. Retaining directional control at Vmin requires co-ordinated flight with sufficient rudder applied to centre the slip ball. We must practice this until it is second nature. We must practice until we are confident that we can fly the aeroplane under control at Vmin fro as long as we wish. We must (train to) gain experience and become confident in the operation of aircraft at 'low' IAS even after the controls are becoming 'mushy' and unresponsive. Fortunately the controls of the C.R.42 never become as mushy as the controls of the Ba 65, but we must learn to fly continuously at Vmin = 150 KmIAS retaining full control in all axes. At low level on the approach is not the place to undertake that part of our type conversion training.

We must test how quickly (or not) we can alter heading at 'low' IAS. During that self training we must think about the implications for aerobatic flight and during an approach. During C.R.42 type conversion training (in the circuit pattern) we never reduce our IAS below 220 KmIAS until we are lined up with the runway (on the FAT). During type conversion training we fly a long (two mile) final because we intend to reduce to Vref and fly a stable approach from a substantial height. Before we attempt that we must conduct training at medium level. We must (train to) evaluate roll authority and directional control in level flight at both 220 KmIAS (circuit pattern IAS) and then at (final approach IAS) 150 KmIAS (Vref), and then at Vmin (which we must determine during our medium level low IAS handling type conversion training). During self training think about why sink and loss of directional control may be problems at 'low' IAS well above stall IAS.

Remember sink is inevitable at any lower profile drag (IAS) than the values determined during this type conversion training when G = 1.0. The more we make the aeroplane weigh, by simply pulling the stick aft to induce more G, the higher the IAS at which it can only sink at full throttle, whether or not it stalls.

Finally during type conversion training we must (train to) evaluate how quickly we can vary VSI by variation of boost alone, with hands off. This is an elementary pilot skill which must be mastered so that we can look *head up* around in all directions, (with our joystick hat switch) while we seek parallax compliance during VFR flight at any IAS. Nobody drives a car or a bicycle staring at the gauges. Combat aeroplanes are no different. We must look where we are going now, and where we are going next, and we must achieve pilotage while looking in all directions, having established stable progression of the vehicle at high or low speed.

Using a pure 3D simulation environment is essential to learning that skill.

IAS with JOYSTICK and TRIM............GLIDESLOPE (HEIGHT) with THROTTLE (BOOST).

A compliant circuit pattern and a compliant attack pattern are barely different applied cases of the same skill. While flying at constant altitude at medium level we must (train to) trim for a profile drag target = 220 KmIAS so that it sustains hands off. Once we have trained how to do this on a zero degree glideslope (level flight), we have learned how to achieve it whilst sustaining any other glideslope. Every other glideslope is just more or less throttle. This training must be repeated for Vref = 150 KmIAS in level flight. Again every other glideslope that is not zero just requires more or less throttle.

In aeroplanes we prevent (or cause) altitude variation with *throttle* (boost). We control our profile drag (IAS) with elevator and then we elevator trim for hands off flight at the target profile drag (IAS) regardless of aircraft pitch and regardless of aircraft VSI. The only phase of the flight in which we have no IAS target is the tactical cruise phase; (some aircraft also have an IAS target in cruise).

There is no such thing as pitch trim!

In level flight if we remove thrust the aeroplane pitches down. It is our profile drag (IAS) which remains constant and which is (auto) sustained by our imposed elevator trim. Our pitch just varies to deliver the IAS we trimmed with elevator trim. When we add thrust the nose pitches up to sustain that same trimmed IAS. Aeroplanes only have profile drag (IAS) trim. Any glideslope (including zero degrees = level flight glideslope) is controlled with thrust, not elevator (trim).

Flying an approach to land is all about understanding that there is no such thing as pitch trim. Elevator trim demands a specific profile drag (IAS). First we apply some slight fore or aft deflection to our joystick to achieve our next target IAS, and then we use trim to demand that target IAS with zero joystick pressure (hands off). No trim gauge is involved. We know we have trimmed correctly for 220 KmIAS or 150 KmIAS 'hands off' by glancing at either ASI.

Once we have trimmed for our current target profile drag, the aeroplane will auto seek that IAS. Elevator trim never controls pitch. It controls profile drag (IAS). The trim we apply will seek our target IAS even as we vary thrust and height and glideslope with throttle (pressione = C). Pitch will just vary to deliver constant profile drag (IAS). Whether or not the aeroplane in question even has an ASI, whether or not we can see several or none from our current eyepoint.

When we terminate cruise at Time of Descent we never vary trim. We never use joystick. We simply throttle the engine to reduce boost and thereby deny cruise thrust. To climb at the same IAS we add boost = C and thereby more than cruise thrust. At ToD we do *not* want IAS to increase or reduce in descent. During the early descent we want IAS to be prior cruise IAS, whatever its value was right here and today, (because it was the most fuel efficient IAS in today’s weather at our current weight). As we throttle the engine at ToD the trim we have applied long before demands that efficient prior cruise IAS and the aeroplane auto seeks that prior cruise IAS throughout the subsequent descent. We control VSI in descent with throttle, not with elevator. nor with elevator trim. In aeroplanes throttle controls VSI not IAS.

The circuit pattern is no different. We control IAS with stick (elevator) and then with (elevator) trim. We control our glideslope (height variation) with throttle (boost). We must never confuse which pilot input, controls which dynamic output, and we must never confuse our aircraft pitch (gun vector) with our glideslope (flight path vector). During a flapless approach they are about ten degrees different. The aeroplane is going nowhere near where the reflector sight is looking and the guns are pointing.

During 'near runway operations' we never use the elevators to alter our flight path vector until it is time to rotate or flare . We use elevator (trim) only to control IAS and we use *only* throttle to control glideslope whether our target glideslope is plus three, or zero, or minus three (degrees). By operating the aeroplane at compliant IAS = complaint pitch with elevator, on the compliant glideslope with throttle, we ensure that we can see where we are going, and we must (train to) deliver that realism to ourselves, else head up flight by visual reference to the surface, (pilotage), is impossible.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts never come close to getting aeroplanes under control. They only ever let aeroplanes take them for a fairground ride on the little model aeroplane's terms. When that obscures the scenery they cheat to cover up their operating errors. Flight simulation realism occurs only after we learn how to take the aeroplane for a compliant ride with us on our terms having learned how to measure and impose parallax compliance using the whole aeroplane, not gauges. Realism is not something delivered by flight simulation developers. Realism is a series of skills we must learn in order to achieve real world compliance.

That real world skill set is acquired by real amateur student pilots with a few hours of study, effort and practice, practice, practice. What differentiates real student pilots from many flight simulation enthusiasts is that that the former are eager to learn what constitutes compliance, (what the rules of the game are), and the new skills required, rather than resorting to cheat modes that are not available to them. Within MSFS we must learn how to control eyepoint as well as how to control flight dynamic variables and we must learn what constitutes parallax compliance from each necessary real world eyepoint, for each aeroplane we fly. We need tutorials which explain what they are because we don't have a QFI to explain and demonstrate compliance. Without them MSFS is only an IFR simulator or a radio control model simulator.

FINAL APPROACH TO LAND.

Aeroplanes are not terrestrial vehicles. They are free to change status in four dimensions. Throttling an aeroplane engine does not reduce profile drag (IAS). It causes the aeroplane to seek the glideslope which delivers the already trimmed profile drag (IAS). The trim required for a plus 3, zero, and minus 3 degree glideslope, at a different pitch in each case, all at 150 KmIAS, is identical. It is only the power (actually thrust) required which varies. Throttle varies only VSI.

Less than cruise power causes (rate of) descent in aeroplanes. More than cruise power causes (rate of) climb in aeroplanes.

It's a very simple concept yet many flight simulation enthusiasts never get it. Controlling rate of descent (Vertical Speed Increment = VSI) is the same thing as controlling glideslope. A change in glideslope does not require a change in pitch (with elevator or elevator trim). It requires a change of rate of descent (VSI) with throttle. Yet many flight simulation enthusiasts, having failed to learn how aeroplanes work, try to use elevator to control height during near runway operations when they must use only throttle to control height and elevator (trim) only to control IAS. Elevator (trim) controls profile drag = IAS, not pitch, not glideslope. During 'near runway operations' glideslope is controlled only with throttle (boost).

The C.R.42 final approach is flown 'head out' of either side of the cockpit looking through the forward strut attachment point which we use as our parallax compliance sight. In the Falco the point of that V is both our FAT compliance cue and also our glideslope compliance cue. If we are on the FAT the runway is centred in the V. It is not mid computer screen. The runway will have 'vertical perspective' while it is not mid screen. If we are on glideslope the runway is nestling in the bottom of the V. In all these illustrations we have sunk below the glideslope with inadequate throttle applied to sustain the glideslope in today's headwind. We are currently sinking to impact a point almost two fields short of the touchdown zone! The pressione required to combat the headwind on the approach is different every day. The lower the value of Vref in a given aeroplane the more it differs day by day. It cannot be notified in handling notes. The throttle (pressione) required is that which delivers parallax compliance day by day.

We have applied maximum cabrare elevator trim to autoseek Vref = 150 KmIAS. We use only throttle (gently!) to position the touchdown point at the base of the V. We increased the GIRI limit of the engine to 2400 GIRI much earlier , but in pioneer era aeroplanes RPM collapse during the approach as throttle is reduced to sustain the compliant glideslope. Here engine RPM have collapsed badly to 2100 GIRI (thrust has collapsed badly) due to inadequate pressione to spool the engine to create the thrust needed to sustain the glideslope in today's approach headwind. Without flaps we cannot apply power that prevents RPM collapse. In well designed vintage era aeroplanes like the Gladiator, which have flaps, we can apply enough power to prevent the engine from spooling down, because we can add to our co-efficient of profile drag (Cdp) by using flaps. That extra Cdp offsets the extra power allowing a stable power approach. Without flaps the pressione that is sufficient to prevent spool down, prevents reduction of of profile drag to Vref = 150 KmIAS. In an antiquated pioneer era biplane like the C.R.42 we must always reduce power so far that the engine spools down. Thrust collapses, lubrication of the engine is very poor, the plugs are fouling, but final approach is a brief circumstance. We are controlling our track with constant applied rudder and (gently!) varying aileron.

If we have no rudder pedals we simply apply maximum (fake) rudder trim to yaw the aeroplane in the same direction we stick your head out. Then we apply just enough opposite aileron to reveal the runway and negate the constant yaw.

If we have rudder pedals we should do exactly the same using the pedals, but manual control of contact yaw input is more tiring and there is tendency in all aeroplanes to apply more yaw than necessary. We always yaw the aeroplane to our head position and oppose with aileron.

How much counter aileron we need is different every day because the crosswind is different every day. The greater the headwind today the more throttle we need to hold compliant C.R.42 glideslope. Falco pitch at 150 KmIAS with 1.0G applied is about 7.5 degrees. Stall pitch is far higher and around 14 degrees. Vref is well above Vs. Provided we apply no back pressure to the joystick we are in no danger of stalling (or spinning) while we make cautious aileron inputs, even though we have (slight) opposed rudder. Full cabrare trim cannot stall the C.R.42. We could easily stall it by pulling the elevator up with aft joystick, so we don't! We control our glideslope only with throttle! We need more throttle, in the picture above, but we must increase thrust gently and progressively, not suddenly. We should have increased throttle gently and sooner.

During a WW2 visual circuit our altimeter (set to QFE not QNH) is used constantly to measure our height (not altitude) as part of our parallax compliance solution. As soon as we are visually aligned with the FAT we lose all interest in the altimeter. On final approach we measure FAT compliance and glideslope compliance only with the strut V while we control glideslope only with throttle. We apply constant yaw towards our head and oppose it gently with aileron to disclose the runway and imposing vertical runway perspective (else we are not tracking the FAT).

We have also lost interest in the ASI. Full cabrare trim is delivering 150 KmIAS and in a C.R.42AS, CN, CN(SL), or LW there will be an artificial horizon where this Egeo has an ASI.

Remember we cannot measure glideslope compliance using the position of the touchdown point within the Strut V at random IAS and random pitch. First we establish IAS and pitch = Vref, and then we measure glideslope compliance.

Only a VC within a fully complaint MDL, with a fully realistic eyepoint, delivers realistic sight line blocking / alignment, (real world parallax), and so only a very carefully designed MDL and VC gives the real head up parallax cues which we must (train to) achieve and impose during flight simulation. Learning the real world skills also requires flight dynamics which deliver the real problem and allow it to be solved with the real solution, but it is the flight simulation enthusiast who has to train hard to deliver compliant (= realistic) aircraft operation and performance in a virtual environment, not the FS developer. Our job is limited to explaining what constitutes compliance via tutorials and aircraft specific on screen phase by phase handling notes. It is consumers who must study them and learn how to comply in order to experience realism.

Soon we will begin to study combat compliance. Notice again that while we fly the final approach our pitch (gun vector) is around plus 8 degrees while our glideslope (flight path vector) to the touchdown zone is more than minus 2 degrees. Where the guns are pointing and where the aeroplane is going are separated by ten degrees. We must never confuse our pitch (gun vector) with our glideslope (flight path vector).

REFERENCE SPEED = Vref.

In the Falco and other pioneer / vintage era (combat) aeroplanes we fly a continuously curved base leg to achieve course reversal at constant IAS with constant bank applied to control turn diameter. In a Falco (and many other WW2 aircraft) that course reversal is flown with a profile drag of 220 KmIAS (120 KIAS). As soon as we complete the course reversal and have achieved final approach track (FAT) we reduce our profile drag to Vref which is aircraft dependent and is 150 KmIAS in all varieties of C.R.42. Calculation of Vref from Vs in the pioneer and vintage eras was different to the modern era.

We must not make the mistake of using the joystick to suddenly move the elevators to achieve Vref = 150 KmIAS immediately after aligning with the FAT. We must retrim to demand 150 KmIAS 'progressively' winding our elevator trim to full cabrare. To achieve Vref = 150 KmIAS suddenly we would need to pitch the nose so high with elevator that we would lose sight of where we are going. Instead we must keep adding just enough joystick back pressure, (or equivalent elevator trim), to decay our profile drag to our new IAS target = Vref = 150 KmIAS. Then we place the touchdown zone at the base of the the V of the struts with throttle, while using slight constant (towards our head) yaw with rudder (trim), opposed by slight aileron to maintain vertical runway perspective within the strut V.

From the descent point when turning 180 degrees around the continuously curved base leg, until we became established on the FAT, we have an 'implied negative glideslope'. We must throttle the engine to achieve our initial target of about minus 1.5 metres per second (m/s) VSI, with a profile drag of 220 KmIAS. Once we are established on the FAT we have instead an explicit glideslope target which is alignment of the touchdown zone within the base of the strut V (parallax compliance).

At the very latest we must achieve Vref, on that glideslope, before we reach the airfield boundary. A skilled and experienced Falco pilot achieves that stable approach at Vref much more quickly than that, but we will always have enough time to achieve parallax compliance if we flew the earlier circuit pattern in a fully compliant way. Once we have achieved full cabrare trim for a profile drag of 150 KmIAS = Vref (hands off) we are only altering boost to control glideslope, *never again using the elevators until we flare*. We apply yaw towards our head and use varying aileron to disclose the runway (yaw the nose away from our head / eyes). We keep runway perspective vertical and we keep the touchdown zone in the base of the strut V with throttle having achieved Vref. We fly the (any) aeroplane 'into the parallax compliance picture' using the correct inputs to control our 4D flight path. Only Vref varies from flapless aeroplane to flapless aeroplane.

We never allow IAS to decay below Vref = 150 KmIAS until we are inside the airfield boundary and about to flare with the elevators. If we fail to achieve Vref significantly earlier than the airfield boundary we have lost control of pitch and we cannot use strut V parallax to measure glideslope (to determine touchdown point we are aiming at with throttle) if pitch has not been imposed at about plus 8 by imposing IAS = Vref at 150 KmIAS by imposing full cabrare trim.

LANDING.

When flying an approach in the C.R.42 the problem is not stall, and not even sink. At 1.0G during an approach we can easily control sink with throttle. We could induce a huge rate of climb just be opening the throttle. The problem is introduction of a pilot induced oscillation by use of the wrong controls or oscillating use of throttle or aileron. Remember there is no correct throttle setting, and no reason to wish to know current pressione. The stable thrust required on the stable approach is different every day as weather (headwind) varies. Our operating target is an output (a defined and stable parallax compliance). There can be no invariant input numbers, or invariant input timing in any aeroplane, even though some MSFS handling notes pretend that there can. Being an air superiority fighter the Falco has excellent (human) elevator authority even at low IAS and even at low propwash. We have plenty of elevator authority to bring the nose up (even further) to flare, even with the throttle fully closed provided we nail Vref and the compliant glideslope.

As we fly the stable approach at Vref in our flapless antiquated C.R.42 our pitch is close to plus 8 degrees. The on ground taildown angle of the C.R42 is 13.4 degrees. The stalling angle is only a little greater . We do not intend to stall the aeroplane above the runway. We intend to reduce the existing nose up sink rate while travelling forwards just above the runway without stalling. We intend to 'hold off'. We flare gently with the extra elevator authority granted to the human pilot beyond full cabrare trim and our operating target is a slight negative VSI value, not a pitch value, not an IAS value. The purpose of the flare is to reduce VSI from more than 300 ft/min (1.5 m/s) on the glideslope to under minus 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) at runway contact. We flare gently and progressively (holding off) with elevator (imposing aft of neutral joystick).

If we arrive over the airfield boundary descending the wrong glideslope, at the wrong IAS, the random angle which we suddenly pitch the aerofoils through as we flare will induce a random change of lift. The result will be 'porpoising'. During the final approach we must achieve the compliant glideslope, at the complaint IAS, to deliver compliant pitch, so that the change of pitch we impose as we flare is also compliant.

We can only ever land (safely) with VSI just below zero whatever our pitch!

In most taildragging aeroplanes, and certainly in a Falco, we approach goggles down and head out. Throughout the approach we apply continuous yaw with rudder (trim) and counter yaw with opposed aileron. Aeroplane heading will never match runway track even with nil wind. Consequently flapless biplane flare is a two axis process. While we flare with elevator we also flare with rudder and we may need to roll off any counter applied bank. We align aircraft heading to runway track, and negate any counter bank, during the last few metres of descent. We are head out and we simply yaw the nose into alignment with the runway track at the last moment. We 'hold off' with elevator. If VSI is visible we target VSI just less than zero. Then with head still out we continue to use the rudder bar to to maintain runway alignment with the wheels on the runway. We must be gentle! with rudder at significant IAS on the ground. The C.R.42 has inadequate wheel track and it is very easy to induce lower wing scrape with excess rudder. This may cause the C.R.42 to cartwheel, rather than just ground loop. Landing accidents were very common.

Once we have the tailwheel down we move the stick full aft, and once we are aligned with the runway we can apply the parking (emergency) brake for maximum deceleration. Using that STOL technique the Falco can stop less than 600 metres from the downwind end of the runway, even in nil wind, provided we flew a fully compliant approach. The runway depicted above is about 100 metres longer than an experienced C.R.42 pilot needs in nil wind. The C.R.42 has high mass and thus high momentum compared to a basic trainer. Don't expect the C.R.42 to stop easily, and of its own accord, like a low mass (low momentum) basic trainer. We need the parking brakes, to slow the landing roll and stop.

Ground handling issues were studied earlier. The approach and landing is all abbreviated in the on screen handling notes as follows.

*****************************

Approach and Landing:

Circuit Pattern:

CARB HEAT = COLD

GIRI = 2400

IAS = 220 KmIAS

Achieve Parallax compliance

Established final:

HEAD OUT APPROACH REQUIRED

Quickly IAS = Vref = 150 KmIAS

SIDE SLIP to control track

THROTTLE to sustain glideslope

Cross airfield boundary = 150 KmIAS

AFTER airfield boundary:

REJECT SIDE SLIP - align with runway

THROTTLE = CLOSED

FLARE = barely negative VSI

AFTER tail settles THEN ...STICK = AFT

PARKING BRAKE..... as required

RPM = INCREASE to taxi

****************************

TYPE CONVERSION and only then SKILLS ENHANCEMENT

During type conversion training we allow ourselves extra TIME to achieve compliance of all kinds. Many flight simulation enthusiasts seem to think they don't need any type conversion training! That is because whatever aeroplane they only 'pretend' to fly they just make up their own nonsense 'rules' and 'procedures' and ignore the real ones. After compliant type conversion we must aim to improve our skills. As we become more skilled we can reduce the TIME that we proceed downwind beyond the touchdown zone.

It might seem that small incremental changes of procedure would be a good idea, but they wouldn't! Any new procedure we employ must deliver different, but still really simple, mathematics of compliance (Keep It Simple Stupid). The changes we make must relate to mathematics to base 60. Two miles is 12000 feet. One mile is 6000 feet . Imperial = Statute miles have no relevance to aviation. All aviation miles are nautical. To intercept the FAT at one mile (instead of two) we must turn base 30 seconds after going abeam the touchdown point at <> 60 metres/sec <> 120 KTS. Everything in aerial navigation is to base 60. Everything in aerial navigation depends on TIME.

So after type conversion training once we feel more confident in our operation of the Falco, (or most other WW2 combat aircraft!), we will initiate descent and turn base only 30 seconds after going abeam our touchdown point offset at 1.5 miles = 9000 feet. The course reversal will still take 80 seconds, but will now intercept the FAT at one mile from touchdown (instead of two) and we must intercept it at a height of 100M (instead of 200). Now we will need to lose 200M in just under 80 seconds of continuously banked base leg.

The explicit final approach course glideslope never differs.

The implied glideslope from downwind to the FAT simply depends on where we intend to intercept the FAT. After we become fully proficient Falco pilots (after type conversion) we intend to intercept the FAT at one mile from touchdown, and then our VSI target throughout our curved base leg becomes just under minus 3 m/s VSI to place us at 100M as we intercept the FAT at one mile from touchdown at a height of 100M QFE.

Until we are experienced at flying compliant circuit patterns and approaches in the C.R.42, (until we have completed type conversion training), we should fly the circuit pattern in not less than five miles visibility. After extensive self training we will be intercepting the FAT only one mile from touchdown and at 100M. To use that technique we need to become more proficient at achieving both compliant glideslope and complaint Vref quickly than we were when intercepting the FAT two miles from touchdown during type conversion training.

The circuit pattern is no different to an attack pattern. We cannot line up and 'attack' any target from a lower altitude than our current personal skills allow. These are not aeroplane variables they are personal skill / proficiency / recency / currency on type variables. If we do not fly a particular type of aeroplane fro a long time we must revert to type conversion. The touchdown zone of the destination runway is just another target with just another fire control solution in which a few numbers are changed. How low we can begin the attack run down the compliant glideslope is a function of our personal skill to obtain fire control solutions quickly. It is *not* a function of the aeroplane or the location! We are the weakest component in this combat aeroplane, in every possible way. When we simulate its operation we must understand and apply its specific compliance targets, but we are testing our (lack of / progression of) skill, not the capability of the aeroplane. Our lack of knowledge and skill is always the problem to be solved.

The reason we wish to intercept the compliant landing glideslope lower (closer to the target) is the same as during an attack pattern. We can abort fewer missions after we (train to) fly the aeroplane in worse visibility. With sufficient skill we can eventually fly a WW2 visual circuit pattern in a visibility of 2 miles.

Those who only pretend to fly the aeroplanes they download have no means to measure the range, or glideslope, to any scenery at all and therefore can only fail to control their 4D offset from each waypoint, even in the circuit pattern. Many are lost, (cannot state their range and bearing from anything), within two minutes of take off, unless they invoke a cheat mode, (even in good visibility), and have no ability to achieve pilotage at all in poor visibility. Flight simulation doesn't have to be like that. Most flight simulation enthusiasts just decide not to learn the skills of pilotage and can therefore never experience flight simulation realism.

 Realism can only emerge from flight simulation as we learn what it is and struggle to achieve it.

That concludes the first half of this tutorial which explained and illustrated how to enjoy flying the Falco outside a combat environment. We must now study the harder to master and conceptually more complex compliance skills of combat flying, but first there are some generic issues we must understand.

G INDUCED LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (GLOC).

Warren Truss bracing, designed for use in railway bridges, when used in biplanes like the Ansaldo S.V.A. 5 or Fiat C.R. 42 delivered literally unbreakable structural integrity. With fixed gear, many struts, and limited power these biplanes reached their terminal velocity before they reached the profile drag (IAS) which could damage them. They were so strong that their pilot also always suffered GLOC before he could cause the airframe to suffer structural failure due to excess G load. The G limits of aeroplanes ceased to have much relevance to agile air combat.

When the pilot of aeroplane type A pulls 4.5G continuously at a given velocity (TAS) and the pilot of different aeroplane type B pulls 4.5G continuously, at the same velocity, they both have exactly the same turn rate and turn radius. Everything in the universe has the same turn radius and rate at that velocity at 4.5G.

As Isaac Newton explained long before;

Radius of turn = TAS^2 / G

There are no exceptions and Newton did not forget to mention things which many aviation enthusiasts seem to think should have some influence.

To stay alive, (to successfully 'engage defensive' against a threat), every pilot needed to pull to just less than GLOC since when they did no human could turn any faster unless that human slowed down, lost ground, and lost momentum (mass * TAS^2). The human who allows his momentum (kinetic energy) to bleed away in air to air combat while fixating on his chosen target will soon be somebody else's target.

HUMAN STRENGTH and ENDURANCE

When humans play video games, masquerading as air combat simulations, the two key elements are always missing. To simulate air combat a fit 165 pound (75 Kg) human male must increase their body weight to over 750lbs (almost 340Kg), by hanging huge weights from their arms and legs, whilst holding a plank above their head at a substantial angle in an F5 tornado of drag.

That reality has nothing to do with the experience of desk top combat flight simulation. 750lb humans are not very agile and do not manipulate gym equipment easily, rapidly, or for very long before their heart gives out. In video games sustaining a high work rate while pulling 4.5G is far, far, far too easy, even if you are a fit, young, 165lb human male.

HEAVY, MUSHY and / or RESPONSIVE CONTROLS.

However real pioneer and vintage era pilots had to come to terms with that reality. There was always an abusive profile drag (IAS) at which they could not achieve full control surface deflection. There was always a higher level of profile drag (IAS) abuse at which they could barely deflect the controls at all. They could not break the aeroplane with applied G, and they could not break the aeroplane with applied profile drag (IAS), but they slowly lost control of the aeroplane as they inflicted more and more profile drag (IAS) abuse.

If the (real) flight dynamics author reduces the size of the elevators the pilot can pull (almost) to GLOC during higher levels of airframe abuse. This is desirable. We would like to be able to achieve (almost) GLOC, at high IAS, sustaining a high energy state with high G applied. Unfortunately the laws of nature being what they are, that has a penalty. As elevator or aileron size reduces towards zero they have less and less control over pitch or roll (rate) at low IAS. To be able to achieve 4.5G at higher IAS we lose the ability to achieve high G at low IAS. Heavy controls are bad, but mushy controls can kill us after take off, or during an approach to land.

Every real FD author had to decide what *range* of profile drag (IAS) values the aeroplane would be *responsive* within. All combat aircraft became unresponsive both at 'excessive' IAS and at 'inadequate' IAS even when the 'excessive' IAS was nowhere near high enough to cause structural failure, and the 'inadequate' IAS was nowhere near low enough to invoke stall. The real world FD author decides what the responsive IAS range will be, and then the real pilot has to target that IAS range skilfully, not only during combat, but also during aerobatics, take off and landing.

Controls are responsive only if they allow us to make small precise adjustments with small deflections of the joystick, (on approach or for gunnery adjustment), and only induce / allow very rapid rates of change when gross deflections of the joystick are made. An aeroplane is responsive only if it will stop pitching and rolling as soon as the input which causes it is withdrawn. To be responsive combat aircraft must have low mass and small dimensions (low inertia). Biplanes have unnecessary mass, but this may be worthwhile to reduce span, to reduce roll inertia.

The Falco had responsive controls over a wide IAS range. Not all fighter designers managed to deliver that objective to pilots.

HARMONISED CONTROLS.

In general pilots, (of agile combat aircraft), like pitch and roll authority to be 'harmonised'. That simply means that the responsive profile drag (IAS) range for those two control axes is designed so that it is the same. The Falco had reasonably harmonised pitch and roll IAS ranges. Roll authority deteriorates faster than pitch authority as profile drag (IAS) over the control surfaces diminishes. This is exacerbated by our ability to add propwash to profile drag over the elevators, while having no ability to add propwash to the same profile drag (IAS) over the ailerons. The more thrust we apply to the rudder and elevators with the airscrew the less harmonised they become with the ailerons.

The rudder rarely has the same responsive IAS range as elevator and rudder anyway, since its authority must be biased to low IAS authority after engine failure in multi engined aircraft, and during spin recovery in all relevant aircraft.

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING.

Once we have learned our responsive = target IAS range we desperately want to know the responsive IAS range of enemy aircraft. There will usually be substantial overlap, but if we can induce 4.5G when the enemy pilot cannot, by targeting a narrower part of our responsive IAS range, which has no overlap with the enemy aircraft in question, we can out turn (laterally or vertically) that enemy threat as long as we achieve sufficiently precise IAS targeting, and provided we have the muscle strength and endurance to sustain 4.5G. Without a G suit attempts to *sustain* more than 4.5G will cause GLOC even in fit young carefully selected and carefully trained humans.

If we can reduce to lower IAS than the enemy, retaining responsive controls after the enemy aircraft has unresponsive controls, even low G manoeuvres will suffice during evasion. This was in general an attribute of biplanes. It was potentially useful as a defensive tactic, but of little use as an offensive tactic unless the enemy pilot was poorly trained and had been provided with an inadequate intelligence briefing concerning the responsive IAS range of the biplane opponent.

The Falco had exceptional low IAS handling by the standards of 1939-1945 and so the favourite defensive manoeuvre was an upward loop or half loop, deliberately pulling to very low IAS over the top. Any enemy fighter the Falco actually encountered (including the Gladiator) which attempted to match the tight radius of a Falco upward loop would lose directional control at the top and was quite likely to flick to incipient spin if large mushy control inputs were made while trying to eliminate yaw and roll at low IAS over the top of the loop. The Falco was one of a very few WW2 fighters which could afford to adopt simplistic aerobatic manoeuvres in combat. The Falco pilot hoped to drag the enemy into the IAS range in which their aircraft had either mushy controls, or better still the pilot lost control. A defensive tactic could then be converted to a position of advantage. The pilot of the less responsive fighter should however simply fly a climbing turn maintaining tally on the looping biplane, and all other threats / targets never allowing his IAS to fall below Vx as he turns and climbs. He will eventually have a height (potential energy) advantage which can be turned into a kinetic energy advantage at will.

However some fighter pilots were badly trained and could not resist the urge to 'dogfight' (become fully engaged). They soon lost control of their IAS, and lost energy advantage one way or another.

The Falco had access to a more dangerous evasive manoeuvre which was the downward loop or half loop. After a protracted dogfight forced a Falco to low level, and far below rated altitude, where the Fiat engine has a huge lack of power disadvantage, if a Falco pilot was very confident of his skill to loop tightly and very confident of his ability to judge height (not altitude) he could downward loop, or half loop from lower altitude than his opponent and might induce a poorly trained enemy to become a terrain kill. Again the other pilot should turn, sustain higher IAS and height advantage and not indulge in aerobatics during combat.

For the Falco, but very few other WW2 fighters, the ability to perform a tight upward half loop from tactical cruise without stalling and without losing directional control over the top of the loop is a very important skill. We should both practice that manoeuvre, and determine the maximum altitude from which it can be initiated and completed at our current skill level.

We should practice downward loops and half loops to determine how much height we lose at our current skill level. To be useful that skill must be allied to exceptional skills of height keeping and measurement (not altitude keeping). This manoeuvre was most useful over the sea. A lot of Falco and Egeo combat was over the sea while attacking or defending convoys, task forces or ports and naval bases.

'CORNER SPEED'

Under all other circumstances we never allow our IAS to fall below 200 KmIAS when climbing in combat, and out target IAS in fully engaged air combat is the IAS which allows 4.5G continuously with the elevators full up which we discovered and practised earlier. It is our human 'corner speed' . Most relevant aircraft have a higher G tolerance than the human flying them and so they have even higher, but always irrelevant, 'corner speed' that humans cannot access without self inducing GLOC,.

The 'corner speed' that mattered in this era of air combat was the 'corner speed' of a mere human. Without a G suit we need to 'corner' at 4.5G to maximise our 'physiologically sustainable turn rate' in any agile aeroplane. This was a constant for all equally fit pilots. Mere humans pulling high enough G to sustain their body weight at much more than 750lbs had no hope of continuously deflecting the control surfaces at the higher 'corner speed' of agile combat aircraft while those aeroplanes lacked power steering. We, and our current skill level, are the weak link in this and every other agile WW2 combat aeroplane. We are not flight testing it. It is flight testing us.

ENDURING FIRE CONTROL SOLUTION.

In the pioneer and vintage eras of aviation history aeroplanes did not triumph in combat. Humans did. Or rather mostly didn't. A human who remained situationally aware, and who had the skill to estimate threat range, and the skill to target IAS precisely, always escaped. To achieve a kill during fully engaged air combat a pilot who 'engaged offensive' also had to be able to obtain an enduring fire control solution. When engaging offensive against another agile aircraft, whose crew complement was adequate and who were sufficiently situationally aware, most real fighter pilots simply did not have the necessary *margin* of skill.

This was not because they were dumb, or poorly trained. It was because the crew of their potential targets were also neither dumb nor poorly trained. When 'kills' depended on machine gun fire the range at which the concentration of firepower was adequate to obtain a kill was very short. With only two machine guns it was no more than 200 feet, and even with twelve in a Hurricane II it was no more than 300 metres.

CONE OF DISPERSION.

Beyond those lethal engagement envelopes the cone of dispersion of the rounds fired from a vibrating aeroplane, buffeted by a tornado of pilot applied profile drag abuse, and the surrounding weather, was so great that the target had to be held at the perfect deflection aiming point for longer than the majority of real fighter pilots had the skill to sustain.

The same machine guns in a more rigid anti aircraft mount on the ground have a smaller cone of dispersion and that mount has a larger lethal engagement envelope, which might be 800 metres, but that more rigid mount still has a limited lethal firepower engagement envelope. Outside that envelope, ('gun parameters'), the enemy has no (sufficiently) lethal fire control solution to pose a lethal threat.

During any simulation of air combat we will need to identify threat envelopes, evaluate threat envelopes, avoid threat envelopes, and we may need to 'engage defensive' before the threat is evaluated to be lethal. Even when we fail to identify a specific threat we must assume a concealed or camouflaged threat that we have failed to identify.

ENGAGE DEFENSIVE.

After we have engaged offensive, we always and later 'engage defensive' against the most lethal threat we have managed to identify and evaluate, or against the always assumed concealed threat. Having a 'guy in back' (GIB), whose primary purpose, in the presence of the enemy, is always threat detection and evaluation, improves detection and evaluation, whether he is rear facing and using only a pair of Mark 1 eyeballs, or forward facing and using complex electronic threat detection and evaluation equipment. With no GIB we must rely on a wingman flying a second single seater to act as our GIB even while he is also preoccupied with being a pilot.

In the presence of the enemy there are many potential threat envelopes. Ideally we avoid them all. In practice we engage (offensive or) defensive against the threat we evaluate to be the greatest, or against the implied concealed threat. Airborne threats whose firepower consists only of machine guns have very small engagement envelopes. We do not allow them to achieve 'gun parameters'. Before they achieve a fire control solution, we spoil their fire control solution. We have two ways to spoil their fire control solution.

1) If we are faster than they are we can simply increase range from the threat so that the threat is never within lethal range.

2) If we are slower we must turn (manoeuvre) to spoil the enemy fire control solution, before it is obtained or sustained. If we turn at the optimum profile drag (IAS) and optimum G load (just short of GLOC) the mere human attacking us cannot turn tighter unless he slows down. If he slows down we achieve (1) above.

FLAK ENVELOPE.

The barrels of FLiegerAbwehreKanone (FlAK = Anti Aircraft Artillery = AAA) of the same calibre as our aircraft guns have fewer fluctuating forces impacting them. They vibrate (whip) less, have a smaller cone of dispersion, and therefore have a greater lethal engagement envelope, but they cannot chase after us. When we are at substantial range the AAA mount can however change its azimuth faster than we can. It can out turn us. The enemy therefore co-locates those (concealed) fixed AAA threats with light strike targets to spoil our fire control solution. We must always employ an attack doctrine which takes that into account.

If possible we remain outside the lethal threat envelope of the fixed position threat throughout the attack. If possible we attack from an appropriate 'stand off' range, and / or height, forever outside the identified or implied threat envelope.

But no fighter-bomber has that option. Instead we spend as little *time* as possible inside enemy gun parameters. The dimensions of the enemy lethal threat envelope are outside our control. *Distance* flown inside enemy gun parameters to attack the target is under enemy control, but *time* flown inside enemy gun parameters is under our control. We must control our exposure to that carefully positioned threat by minimising our *time* inside enemy gun parameters by entering the threat envelope at the last possible moment and by traversing that identified or implied lethal gun envelope at high mean velocity. At low altitude (in thick air) high velocity (TAS) requires high profile drag (IAS).

Far more C.R.42s were lost to Flak than in air to air combat, (see history). This was not due to a deficiency of the design. It was due to poor doctrine, else poor compliance with doctrine. That same poor compliance minimised damage to enemy vehicles and aircraft because C.R.42 pilots often failed to allow themselves the time they needed to obtain a valid fire control solution for bombs, let alone an enduring fire control solution for sufficiently prolonged strafing of an individual target.

GROUND ATTACK DOCTRINES.

The Falco was quickly relegated to light strike duties, but had not been designed to perform that role and lacked the necessary on board means to measure range to target. It was extremely reliant on multiple parallax compliance techniques to intercept the compliant glideslope for a high angle strafing attack.

From its introduction to squadron service in May 1939 until May 1941 no Falco had bomb racks. Most had already been delivered, and the aircraft already delivered were rarely retro equipped with bomb racks, in part because they had no on board means to measure the relevant high angle attack glideslope. From the summer of 1941 late production C.R.42s with designation C.R.42AS. were manufactured with external bomb racks, vacuum systems, and artificial horizons which could be used to measure glideslope compliance As explained in the supplied history many existing C.R.42s were relegated to ground attack from the spring of 1941, but they could only strafe, and they had only two guns!

This flight simulation release provides several varieties of Fiat C.R.42 including the C.R.42AS (Africa Settentrionale = Africa North) and C.R.42LW (LuftWaffe) with artificial horizon and bomb racks which allowed them to make high angle attacks, by day and by night, during which the pilot measured range using the artificial horizon and altimeter as gradually explained and illustrated at length below.

The following sections have most application to the Fiat C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW. Most C.R.42s had no bomb racks.

Note however that high angle precision bombing is only a doctrinal extension of high angle strafing for the reasons explained below. High angle doctrinal compliance is required whether we only intend to strafe a ground target from June 1940 onwards, or only from May 1941 onwards have the intention to bomb it in the new varieties of Falco which have just two external bombs.

FIRST WE MUST IDENTIFY THE TARGET AREA

We must always study maps or charts of the target area to determine the height of the target exactly as though it is a runway whose altitude we need to know in order to plan our circuit pattern height to achieve circuit pattern parallax compliance before landing on that destination runway. Plan-G (see above) is ideal for that purpose. We plan our attack pattern in the same way as a circuit pattern and we must (train to) achieve precise head up parallax compliance in both cases. How we navigate to the start of the attack pattern base leg depends on many things.

During pioneer era navigation (pilotage) unless we are following a line feature at defined VFR parallax compliance offset we choose a track which will cause the next landmark = waypoint to appear left of our track so that we are absolutely certain we know which side of the nose it will appear to ensure that it is not obscured by the nose and does not pass underneath unseen. When we fly a fighter with a very aft seating position the arc of scenery obstructed by the aircraft structure is vast and we need to seek each landmark and waypoint goggles down and head out. For ease of comprehension and illustration our briefed target for this training exercise is the runway intersection at Tripoli airport where the runways conveniently run north-south and east-west. We are briefed to approach the target area from the east tracking west. The target (runway intersection) is at an altitude of 80 metres. We intend to fly the base leg of the attack pattern at 1000M QFE ( = 1080M QNH). Our final approach track (the attack run) will be southerly (270 – 90 = 180).

First we must identify the target area as it appears at 11 o'clock and we track it to 10 o' clock. Eventually we must identify our primary target within the target area. Below we can see some lights associated with the westerly runway and we can just about work out where the middle of the target area is. Now we can begin to plan our attack pattern which will normally be a right angled base leg approach . We will be making our high angle attack from north to south at right angles to our line of approach (base leg). For now we are content to track towards a point roughly 2 miles abeam our primary target. There is no easy way to measure that offset and for the moment our baseline offset does not need to be precise.

Above we may be satisfied that we have identified the briefed target area, but we have not yet positively identified our primary target. As briefed we are long base leg at 1000M QFE. We have no interest in where sea level is until the attack is over. Unlike a Breda 65, during a C.R.42AS attack pattern our base leg is at right angles to our final approach path, (just like a modern era circuit pattern).

The high base leg at 1000M QFE usually begins at much more than patrol IAS, but we must reduce IAS early enough to identify first the target area and then the primary target as well as surrounding threats. We apply rated GIRI (2400) and not more than 0.86C pressione to comply with maximum safe pressione below RATED ALTITUDE and to give ourselves enough time to fly a precise attack pattern, at the compliant height (1000M) and on the compliant track (90 degrees to the Final Approach Track = FAT). Our base leg terminates over the precise interception point (IP) where we will turn to our FAT. We turned the reflector sight on during target area acquisition.

The Falco was not designed to fly ground attack missions. The seating position is too far aft and even targets at 11 o' clock are obscured by aircraft structure if we approach them goggles up and head in. In a Falco the approach to the target must be flown goggles down and head out. As we begin our base leg, goggles down and head out, the target is at 11 o'clock progressing to 9 o'clock, (or 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock in a right hand attack pattern). By default we will fly left hand circuit patterns and left handed attack patterns because the only altimeter is obscured if we fly right hand patterns. We are already attempting to identify threats and targets in the general target area which we place at 11 o'clock, travelling to 10 and then 9 o'clock.

Today the visibility is excellent . The target area is not obscured by drifting smoke. Threats and targets are easy to identify early and we are still running with maximum safe low altitude pressione applied (0.86C). . Often in worse visibility we will need to reduce C to much lower values to increase the time we make available to identify everything we must positively identify. We always apply combat GIRI = 2400 prior to the attack pattern. For ease of comprehension of C.R.42AS / LW strike doctrine we are using an airfield as our 'target area', and the runway intersection as out primary target. In the illustration above we are early base leg in our attack pattern tracking west to intercept a FAT which will be south (270 – 90 = 180) along the southerly runway which is not quite visible or identifiable. We seek our target area and then our primary target head out and goggles down approaching it on a track at right angles to our our intended FAT.

Remember other elements of our strike package are setting up base legs at right angles to ours to achieve a 'cadena' attack. Others are providing top cover. We concentrate on first target area parallax compliance and then on primary target parallax compliance. For the moment our baseline offset is not critical while first the target area, and then the primary target emerge from the murk in a rather random offset. However once we have identified our primary target within the general target area we must begin to seek our IP for the FAT using precise parallax compliance. While we are head out as above we establish a base leg that we judge to be roughly two miles baseline offset from the primary target.

We remain head out and goggles down until we are sure we have identified our primary target, and the position of relevant and briefed AAA threats, and for as long as we need to keep the primary target in sight (maintain tally). There always comes a time when proceeding on the constant track we established head out and as above, as we approach that target with an ideal baseline offset of a little under two miles the target is eventually visible above the cockpit side, and behind the rearmost wing strut when we are head in and goggles up with our head carefully placed against the parallax compliance headrest (after we press the spacebar in MSFS). In practice our task is to fly the primary target into that parallax compliance, always with minimum roll applied (ideally zero).

In the illustration above we have flown the runway intersection into first high angle attack pattern base leg parallax compliance at zero roll. Engine pressures are compliant. Oil temperature is compliant despite zero cowl opening. Pitot heat is off. The reflector sight is on. This first high angle doctrine parallax compliance places us 1000M above the target and at a slant range of exactly 3 miles. We do not guess or ignore these things. We must measure them and impose them. Our life depends on our skill to position our aeroplane versus many threat envelopes. Our top cover are taking care of any air to air threat. If we are hunting British tanks or artillery during a CAS sortie over the North African desert we have no hope of positively identifying either as enemy at this range and we would be flying the middle of the designated target area into the parallax compliance above as we continue to seek seek positive identification of briefed threats and targets.

It makes no difference whether our intention is to strafe or bomb the target.

The Falco has a sloped cockpit side. After first high angle attack pattern compliance we apply very slight left bank to close our baseline range and to fly the target into second attack pattern compliance. Below, at zero roll we are now 1.5 miles base line range from the target. The primary target is now just visible within the first V of the lower wing Warren Truss bracing, at zero roll from 1000M QFE, with our head against the supplied headrest (using the spacebar).

Each compliance must be achieved 'head in' with our head against the parallax compliance headrest (by pressing the keyboard spacebar) and with (almost) zero roll. Every type of pioneer era or vintage era ground attack aeroplane has (at least) two parallax cues employed to achieve the necessary avoidance of tactical threat envelopes. We are still outside the lethal threat envelope of tactical AAA co-located with the primary target.

The poor suitability of the Falco for ground attack now becomes obvious. The seating position is much too far aft. Consequently just when we would like to be examining the target area in detail to locate and positively identify our primary target our eyeline is blocked by the lower wing. Rossatelli reduced the chord of that lower wing as much as possible, but a low wing is a major obstruction in any fighter designed for air to air use, and thus with the seat close to the aeroplane's centre of rotation. Strike aircraft with low wings require a forward seating position and that greatly favours twin piston engine designs (e.g.Beaufighter or the failed Breda 88 Lince). Because the Falco was not designed for ground attack our too far aft seating position and its high sloping cockpit sides make our life very difficult. We nevertheless fly our base leg so that the target is just visible above the cockpit edge (with our head against the parallax compliance headrest), as it disappears under the lower wing and in the 'strut V'. We then maintain our prior track and altitude until it reappears behind the lower wing.

We have now reached our doctrinal Interception Point (IP) for a high angle attack and it is time to roll rapidly onto the FAT (roll in to the attack). Now we close the throttle. We do not pitch down until we have rolled to the FAT which we planned to be 180. For reasons explained at length in the earlier Breda 65 tutorial, and more briefly below, we must achieve and sustain a compliant minus 30 degree glideslope on the FAT. This IP and our precise 4D navigation compliance while seeking this IP all have the objective of locating the minus 30 degree glideslope to the primary target at a location just beyond the 'lethal gun envelope' of the tactical AAA defences., at the complaint IAS for high angle attack initiation. We have achieved a precise 4D navigational compliance using parallax and gradual reduction of pressione to deliver our target IAS over the IP = 220 KmIAS.

As we roll to the FAT we lose sight of the target. We reach our descent point (DP) only after we are approximately aligned with our planned FAT. We do not dive as we roll in to the attack run. We roll in, reach the planned FAT, and then we dive. Unlike many monoplanes performing strike missions we do not need to pitch up to further reduce IAS as we 'roll in'.

Each parallax compliance of the attack, followed by a rapid turn of about 90 degrees over the IP pictured above, delivers us to the location in space where the minus 30 degree glideslope passes through a height of 1000M above the target which is then at 2000M slant range (Pythagoras' theorem applies). Measurement of glideslope, achievement of the seven part fire control solution, (see below) and application of both open fire and cease fire doctrine are then identical to the procedure detailed within the Breda Ba 65 tutorial, only the most important elements of which are repeated below.

During flight simulation we can only learn whether an aeroplane is well designed for tactical strike missions by using a very carefully designed 3D VC environment within an entire realistic 3D MDL. The obstructed view ahead and the high and sloping open cockpit sides of the Falco make it difficult for us to intercept the FAT at 90 degrees, but it is an angle that is fairly easy to judge visually. However during the later phases of the attack pattern the pilot places his head against the headrest, provided explicitly for the purpose of controlling pilot eyepoint during real world doctrinal parallax compliance monitoring. The headrest is not there for pilot comfort. It is an essential component of parallax compliant enemy gun parameters avoidance doctrine (IP compliance doctrine) for this specific type of aeroplane. We place our head against the parallax compliance headrest using the spacebar in FS9.

We control the range and glideslope at which we intercept the FAT (the location of the IP), using parallax compliance, and the altimeter set to QFE, and monitoring IAS to also achieve IAS compliance. Having located the whole target area, we must fly the target itself into each high angle attack pattern parallax compliance in turn, while approaching the FAT at about 90 degrees at 1000M QFE with (close to) zero roll and before we reach the IP we reduce to 220 KmIAS. If that seems slow compared to the nonsense practised in video games we must remember that in real life in most aeroplanes the dive point (DP) must be crossed at much lower IAS than the 220 KmIAS applicable to the C.R.42. In real life many aircraft must pitch up to reduce IAS further at this point. In real life aircraft like the Ju 87 must begin their attack dives at significantly lower IAS.

The randomised nonsense from video games does not work in real life. Nothing about our attack plan is random. It follows that a Falco attack from a height of 1000M is incompatible with a target area visibility below several miles and avoidance of the co-located tactical threat envelope is incompatible with a cloud base below 1000M.

First we locate the entire target area visually from 1000M QFE, then we identify and evaluate both threats and targets, then we plan our attack pattern, then we execute our high angle doctrine attack pattern. We may need to 'circle round' the whole target area before we initiate our component of the cadena attack pattern, While doing so we maintain a stand off range of 5 miles using our 9 to 1 parallax compliance cue as illustrated earlier. We are keeping the threat 'outside gun parameters'. We do not 'guess' about such things. We measure them! We measure them using head up parallax compliance. To do so we must learn the various parallax compliance cues for the aeroplane we are flying today! In real life, and in MSFS. Parallax compliance skill (the ability to evaluate the range and glideslope) to anything in the scenery is one of the key skills of flight simulation. Without that learned skill flight simulation realism cannot exist.

GPS (or a Multi Function Display in aircraft like the F-16) only allows us to estimate range to a few things in its database and is a very poor substitute for doctrinal parallax compliance until the supplied GPS or MFD allows us to position multiple doctrinal waypoints manually onto the electronic MFD. GPS (actually Regional Positioning Systems = RPS) were much used by the Allies during WW2, but at that date only the Decca Navigator RPS, used only by the Royal Navy, provided a real time moving map display to which doctrinal waypoints could be added manually for each warship sortie.

IP LOCATION.

With our head against the 3D VC headrest, (using the eyepoint carefully encoded by the FS developer for that aeroplane type), (at any simulation zoom factor), we can use our head up parallax compliance skills to impose any stand off range we are mandated to achieve, and any glideslope we are mandated to achieve, without recourse to gauges of any kind. Gauges, including GPS, lack the ability to measure range to most objects in any scenery (real or virtual). Yet flight simulation is the demonstration of compliant flight in a virtual environment , and that compliance is all about positioning our aircraft precisely in range and glideslope versus many 'threats' and 'targets' most of which have no co-located DME transmitter and are not depicted on any kind of GPS or MFD.

The place where we turn to intercept the attack FAT is the attack interception point (IP).

When we fly strike aircraft with only pioneer phase of aviation history (WW1) capability the IP has the same 3D location regardless of the attack doctrine employed.

In theory we could proceed to the IP down a leg of any angle, but 90 is close to ideal in a Falco and from a left (or right) hand attack pattern the Falco has natural parallax compliance cues. In a Falco and other primitive pioneer era aeroplanes with open cockpits we cannot just make a crayon mark on the canopy to create a different interception angle parallax compliance cue at the same or different IP. In open cockpit aeroplanes we are limited to learning and using the naturally available parallax compliance cues to measure range and glideslope throughout every flight. In MSFS we cannot make those parallax compliance crayon marks on the canopy even if we have a canopy!

We are maintaining level flight at a height of 1000M (above the target), flying a base leg at about 90 degrees, but we make very small roll adjustments to keep the centre of the target area, and then later the positively identified target itself progressing from high angle attack parallax compliance to the next parallax compliance. The attack pattern in any pioneer era aeroplane is a precise 4D manoeuvre which allows us to positively identify targets without blundering through their threat envelopes and which allows us to intercept the minus 30 degree glideslope to that target when we are exactly 2000M slant (bullet path) range from that target. In order for us to learn and then retain the relevant skills the FS developer must provide an accurate 3D VC set within an entire and accurate 3D MDL in which all the parallax compliance cues are very carefully and realistically positioned by the MDL creator. A 2D simulation environment does not deliver invariant parallax compliance at variable zoom.

We remain outside lethal co-located 12.7mm AAA gun parameters until we reach the attack IP, when we roll to intercept the FAT ,and only then, dive and attack having reached our descent point (DP). We enter enemy 12.7mm gun parameters only at the last possible moment. If we are inexperienced and slow to line up targets we must apply very low boost, (close throttle) to cross the IP at less than 220 KmIAS in order to diminish our speed towards the target and we will be inside enemy gun parameters for longer than experienced combat pilots as we struggle to obtain an enduring fire control solution.

Our Falco IP and our later DP are exactly matched to our primary weapon system which is only a pair of 12.7mm Breda cannon. When we become fully proficient in strafing we will be at the edge of our gun parameters for attacking the primary target just as we line it up in elevation and azimuth . We must concentrate on locating the real 12.7mm Falco strafing run IP using the Falco high angle attack IP compliance cues to do so, and on executing a swift and proficient 'roll in' from the real IP so that we are ready to dive at the DP and 'open fire' as we reach real world Breda 12.7mm 'open fire' parameters at 750M QFE on the minus 30 degree glideslope which places us 1500M slant (bullet path) range from the target.

All of these basic and essential head up flying skills require a true 3D simulation environment so that parallax compliance is preserved at any and every ZOOM factor MSFS users prefer to employ.

Choosing our own suitable targets, we must focus our Falco combat skills training on becoming more and more proficient in flying the parallax compliance sequence above, over and over again. We can do so using any ZOOM. But of course when we ZOOM out to less than 1.0 in MSFS we lose Level of Detail (LOD). When we ZOOM out everything is much smaller than it should be, is harder to spot and identify, and has very poor LOD compared to the LOD which the MSFS scenery designer intended us to see. Combat flight simulation enthusiasts who always ZOOM out to ZOOM < 1.0 need to think harder about the negative consequences, especially if the role being simulated requires location and identification of target scenery before it is at close range . The doctrine employed must not be driven by poor consumer choices concerning ZOOM and LOD. The doctrine must be real and we must slowly train ourselves to cope with reality using the necessary ZOOM = LOD.

The real world IP which we must (train to) identify and then navigate to within MSFS is at the conjunction of two sides of a right angle triangle on the ground. We have planned and constructed our attack pattern terminating at this precise IP to match our primary weapon system open fire doctrine. Greater stand off is superfluous and will not work in bad weather, and lesser stand off allows the enemy to shoot as down as we position prior to 'rolling in' to intercept the minus 30 degree glideslope from the very precise 12.7mm weapon IP. Nothing is random, everything is planned, and substantial skills training is required to simulate real life high angle attack planning, threat envelope avoidance, and delivery of realistic open fire doctrine .

The IP is where we commence our turn through about 90 degrees to intercept the carefully planned FAT from just outside our primary weapon system open fire range . We roll in and after we are aligned with the planned FAT we commence our attack dive immediately, but in a controlled way, while head in and while now looking at the target, to re-identify our target, through our HUDWAS (reflector sight) which we turned on earlier.

ZOOM CHOICE.

Provided we use *human* vision (ZOOM = 1.0) and we thus allow each scenery object to occupy the number of pixels on our screen the MSFS MDL or BGL designer intended, and the object thus possesses the Level Of Detail (LOD) that its creator intended, then from 1.5 miles bullet path range we can locate and identify targets as small as individual tanks , or parked aircraft, if they are in open ground. At ZOOM =1 we can differentiate a Hurricane from a Gladiator parked on an airfield, or a Jeep from a tank, from this carefully controlled IP. There is nothing random about our pioneer / vintage era high angle attack parallax compliance doctrine. During the base leg to the compliant IP we can initiate the process of identifying and evaluating the priority of both targets and threats, before we reach the IP, while remaining outside lethal enemy co-located light flak parameters.

MSFS is designed to allow humans to see and identify scenery at ZOOM = 1.0. It matters! A wide Field of View (FoV) is often the wrong choice. MSFS users must think carefully before degrading LOD to improve FoV. We must make logical choices after taking all relevant simulation needs into account. Modern true 3D simulation (only) allows ZOOM values other than 1.0 to be used without mislocation of the surface scenery, but variation of ZOOM to values below 1.0 exists to reduce object size and to reduce object LOD, and thus prevents scenery location and identification at relevant and potentially necessary bullet path range.

Study all the illustrations above again before reading on. As we proceed from several miles base line stand off, to 1.5 miles slant range stand off, maintaining a height (not altitude) of 1000M, proceeding along a base leg at 90 degrees to our intended final approach track, we can locate, identify and classify both threats and targets at ZOOM=1. A real world ground attack isn't a bunch of randomised, make it up as you go along events, with no specific goals to achieve, before attacking something barely identified with lethal firepower!

SKILL TRAINING is the key to interesting flight simulation.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts never make any attempt to learn how to judge the range and glideslope to anything in the scenery and consequently never learn how to plan or execute compliant visual circuit patterns, let alone compliant visual attack patterns. In real life and in simulators range is measured using parallax compliance from a known height. This is a very basic and essential flying skill. A strafing attack on a soft target, before delivery of the Fiat C.R.42AS with bomb racks only from the summer of 1941, does not enter enemy gun parameters earlier than a precision bombing attack on a hard target later in WW2. Our life is not suddenly worth less when we only strafe, and the expensive military equipment we signed out to perform this mission is not worth less when we only strafe. To the contrary, the lower the lethality of the weapon system we intend to employ, the more critical it becomes to put our survival and the survival of the weapon platform first. Incorporating realism into flight simulation requires us to plan our own survival and operate aircraft accordingly.

The visual flight rules (VFR) have the same precise 4D navigation requirements as the instrument flight rules (IFR). When the weather is good enough to allow us to fly VFR we must (train to) navigate very precisely in 4D using head up parallax compliance cues. When we are unable to fly VFR, (or just elect to fly IFR in aeroplanes with the necessary avionics), we must (train to) navigate very precisely in 4D using head down cues. VFR is not a synonym for go where you like, at any altitude you like, at any IAS you like, at any time you like. VFR is just a different way of achieving equally precise aircraft positioning in 4D when the weather permits us to employ head up parallax compliance instead of gauges. VFR compliance is harder than IFR compliance, but allows us to position the aircraft accurately versus many more objects in the scenery than gauges, including GPS, ever can. VFR compliance is much more versatile than IFR compliance, but requires more personal skill, else commercial aircraft would be required to fly VFR whenever possible to maximise public safety. The opposite is true.

VFR compliance, (head up parallax compliance), is harder to learn, but it is learned by real amateur student pilots with a few hours of training and effort to comply. Amazingly most flight simulation enthusiasts never make any effort to learn VFR head up parallax compliance skills at all, and forever wander around randomised 2D tracks, at random heights, at random IAS, and consequently arrive everywhere at random times having cheated continuously to locate their destination at all!

Real life is not like that, and VFR compliance skills are within the grasp of flight simulation enthusiasts who develop the intention to learn them. Whether we only intend to deploy those skills during realistic simulation of a Cessna sortie, avoiding the threat envelopes of the modern world, which include any airspace we have not obtained ATC permission to enter, artillery ranges, nature reserves, masts., other airfield patterns, etc, etc, or whether we also intend to extend our flight simulation experience to achieve head up parallax compliance using 'realistic' combat doctrines.

Just pretending to fly (combat) aeroplanes in video games is not at all the same thing as simulating their compliant operation within a flight simulator. Flight simulation is demonstration of real world compliance, head up and head down, in a virtual environment.

HIGH ANGLE ATTACK DOCTRINE.

In real life fixed wing aircraft of the vintage era had to employ 'high angle dive attack doctrine' because skimming over the terrain at 'tree top level' to achieve terrain masking from threats did not allow them to achieve sufficiently early identification of either targets, or threat envelopes. The supplied history illuminates how many of the C.R.42s opponents were attacking C.R.42 bases using high angle (not dive bombing) doctrine. Especially in single engined aircraft the view of the terrain directly ahead was very badly blocked in level flight. During CAS sorties we are suddenly confronted by either a target or a threat, our evaluation time is too limited, and we misidentify friendly forces as enemy (or vice versa) and 'friendly fire' ensues. Else during deep air assault we fail to spot that there is an enemy threat dead ahead and we blunder into its lethal envelope.

Real strafing attacks must be made at substantial glideslope angles from an IP which is a substantial height above all local threat envelopes. This is true even if we will only strafe during missions to Suppress Enemy Air Defences (SEAD), or during anti supply vehicle, or parked aircraft (counter air) missions. We must give ourselves time to identify both threats and targets. If possible we determine a strafing priority before we 'roll in' to the attack over the IP.

We may need to suppress high intensity threats before we attack the primary target and we will only attack the highest value targets from close range. We need time to identify and prioritise an empty Jeep versus a truck full of supply. Targets of any value which are vulnerable to strafing are likely to be dispersed, and camouflaged, or hidden among buildings. Outside of children's games we must employ a ground attack doctrine which makes available the *time* we need to locate and identify threats and targets, before we attack. We have no control over the *distance* between two places, but as captain of any aeroplane we are always responsible for controlling *time* between two places by varying our velocity. All aerial navigation is 4D.

JAGDBOMBER DEFICIENCIES.

Using a carefully designed 3D VC environment, flying from the real eyepoint, which blocks the lines of sight correctly, to deliver the real parallax cues, in all directions and at any flight simulation zoom factor, is essential to this and any other head up = VFR flying skill training. It is also the only way we can understand why one aeroplane made precision attacks with unguided weapons possible and another made it impossible or difficult.

Those of you who have already learned to operate the Breda Ba 65 realistically have understood the advantage which derives from having the Ba 65 cockpit about as far forward as it can possibly be, and the nose ahead about as short as it possibly can be. Pilot eyeline is always slightly downward when he looks through the parallax (reflector) sight. He has many possible 'eyelines' but only one 'sight line'. The sight line must obviously pass over the nose. The minimum range at which the sight line can possibly intersect the gun vector (bullet path) is determined by nose length ahead of pilot eyepoint. The range at which the sight line intersects the bullet path is the 'harmonisation range'. It can be longer than the nose obstructed minimum, but never shorter. We must never confuse gun convergence (in azimuth') doctrine with sight harmonisation (in elevation) doctrine, even though many aviation enthusiasts writing the Boys Big Book of Wonderplanes often make that mistake. Wing guns may converge in azimuth at sight harmonisation range, or not.

The design attributes of an assalto are not the design attributes of a jaeger . A correctly designed assalto gives the pilot an excellent view of the terrain, threats and targets ahead and to the beam. The surface target never passes under the low wing, even if the assalto in question has a low wing, A jaeger pilot instead needs to have his head as close to the centre of aircraft rotation as possible and much, much further aft. When a jaeger becomes a jagdbomber the pilot is in entirely the wrong place.

Pilot eyeline through a parallax (reflector) sight is always slightly downward, looking down towards the gun vector. Notice that the gun muzzles in the Falco, (top of fuselage just behind the cowl flaps), must be mounted only just below pilot eyeline due to the aft seating position of the Falco pilot. Pilot sightline passes through the bullet path at inner gun circle 'harmonisation' range. The longer the nose ahead of the pilot eyepoint the further out in space the minimum harmonisation range of the parallax sight for a weapon system mounted the same distance below the pilot sightline. Fiat mounted the same Breda machine guns much higher in the Falco making sight harmonisation range as short in the C.R.42 as in the Ba 65. But when in level flight any given target on the ground passes out of sight under the nose of the Fiat at much greater range. The Falco must have an open cockpit because it requires head out and goggle down operation much of the time. So called ''2D panels” obviously preclude this. At all pitch angles (except minus 90) more ground targets ahead are obscured by the structure ahead in aeroplanes with an aft seating position. By 1939 no one was still designing airliners (or even mailplanes) with the cockpit in the middle of the aeroplane even if the airliner was single engined.

The under wing bomb impact point (harmonisation cue) is always closer to the pilot than the harmonisation point of the guns. The bombs have no muzzle velocity and have a higher co-efficient of profile drag than bullets. The shorter the nose ahead of the pilot the more shallow the dive which can possibly disclose the unguided bomb impact point. When a Ba 65 and a C.R.42AS / LW (or any other aeroplane) carrying identical bombs attack the same target they will ideally release their bombs at the same location, at the same velocity, on the same glideslope. If the seating position of a jadgbomber causes the cowling to obscure the target from the compliant high angle attack glideslope the jagdbomber pilot must attack down a steeper glideslope to unmask the target and he then has no rangefinder. Having no rangefinder he has no fire control solution.

To disclose the same target for strafing or bombing the jagdbomber pilot usually needs to employ a steeper random glideslope due to his excessively aft real eyepoint. Many well designed jaegers made very poor jagdbombers. Many jagdbombers could not employ the 'easy' to learn high angle doctrine explained above and below. Many jagdbomber pilots had no way to measure stand off range while diving, and their relegated aircraft had to be designed to have excessively light controls to allow pitch control at the very high IAS values reached in their over steep attacks, which they then had to terminate at excessive height and stand off range to avoid terrain collision. Interceptors like the Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200 could not be relegated to jadgbombing and were poor strafing weapon platforms. In the steep dives necessary to disclose the target within their HUD those monoplanes accelerated too quickly, leaving their pilots too little time with gun rounds on target. Fixed landing gear biplanes, festooned with bracing struts, had high coefficients of profile drag, and accelerated more slowly down any glideslope. Falco pilots had more time to line up the target after rolling in, followed by more time on target, before needing to cease fire to avoid collision with the stationary target, accelerating towards it more slowly.

We know that, having no flaps, the pilot of the Falco who remains 'head in' with his eyeline through the reflector sight, (has his head compliantly on the weapon sightline), cannot see the (mainwheel) touchdown zone when a Falco descends the landing runway glideslope. The nose obscures the aiming point within the scenery.

So the 64,000 dollar question arises. Can the pilot of a C.R.42AS / LW with bomb pylons fitted from May 1941 see the (bomb) touchdown zone from the compliant precision high angle attack minus 30 degree glideslope. Remember we must never confuse pitch with glideslope. In the jpg above complaint pitch and complaint glideslope are about ten degrees different and they are also different on a much steeper attack glideslope too.

The Ba 65 sightline on a minus 30 degree glideslope is depicted below. There is eventually a precise stand off range, (measured with the altimeter), and doctrinal launch speed, (estimated with the ASI) ,which causes the (unguided bomb) touchdown zone to be the lower intersection of the gun cross and the bomb circle of the HUDWAS (reflector sight). Our armourer tilted the mirror to match the seven part fire control solution to the ballistics of the bombs in use before flight, (see later).

If we pause and use MSFS, to swap the C.R.42 3D VC and MDL, onto the same glideslope at the same range and velocity, we can determine whether it is compatible with precision high angle bombing from compliant minus 30 degree glideslopes, chosen because on that glideslope slant (bullet path) range is simply 2 x height, when its pilot in turn places his head against the Falco HUDWAS sighting compliance headrest.

We discover that the Fiat C.R.42 does have an identical seven part fire control solution for identical unguided bombs (in versions which have bomb racks), during high angle minus 30 degree attacks which allow us to measure slant (= bomb path) range using the altimeter as Range = Height x 2. Minimum Descent Height (MDH) on that glideslope is 200M QFE (and thus 400 metres (bomb path) slant range from target) .

Video games masquerading as simulations wilfully confuse open parallax sights that pilots must look through with closed fire control computers delivering a fire control solution to the in cockpit computer screen and they intentionally remove the need for parallax compliance. They do so by invoking the 2D panel as a cheat mode to avoid (and prevent) the need for 3D parallax compliance skills. SIZE_Y of the rear window of the so called '2D panel' is varied until every aeroplane has an equally easy parallax compliance fire control solution, every single one of which miraculously terminates in the middle of the video game window whatever aspect ratio it has and regardless of different sight line blocking from shallow dive angles in real life. The video game is rendered childishly easy by removal of 3D compliance requirements and nobody learns anything about how anything works in real life.

True 3D simulation allows us to learn real fire control solutions and in the two jpgs above using true 3D simulation allows us to understand how restricted the view ahead in a badly designed biplane, with pilot seat too far aft, really is. The poor C.R.42 pilot views the world through a narrow slit with much of his forward view obscured by the upper wing. This situation is even worse during fully engaged air to air combat as we 'gain angle' on any potential target. As we slowly progress to obtain a fire control solution an air to air target passes behind the top wing and we lose our tally. We have no idea whether the fully engaged turning target rolls hard and changes direction while it is out of sight behind our upper wing. Procuring more biplanes as air superiority fighters in 1939-41 was a terrible procurement decision. We can only understand the deficiencies of biplane fighters by inhabiting them in a pure 3D simulation with all relevant sightlines annoyingly blocked and no 2D cheat modes to remove the real sightline blocking structure.

Flight simulation is not a variety of video game. In order that we may achieve all of our ground attack targeting parameters we must intercept the final approach track from a precise IP, assessed dynamically using head up parallax compliance cues. Planning and executing a compliant attack pattern requires exactly the same skills as planning and executing a compliant circuit pattern to land. Unfortunately many flight simulation enthusiasts have spent hundreds of hours using a flight simulator without ever acquiring the parallax compliance skills real student pilots are expected to master in under ten. Real pilots do not learn the skills of attack pattern planning until after they have mastered the skills of circuit pattern planning and execution. If you have never learned to fly compliant circuit patterns using parallax compliance to evaluate and control stand off range and glideslope you should learn those skills, before attempting realistic threat envelope avoidance doctrines and realistic open fire doctrines.

Remember the unguided bomb open fire doctrine location pictured above, (200M height at 400M range on the minus 30 glideslope), for the underwing bombs of the C.R.42AS / LW, (or Breda 65, or any other aeroplane with the same bombs), is our Minimum Descent Height (MDH) for this high angle (minus 30 degree) approach glideslope and is therefore cease fire doctrine for guns during a strafing attack in any relevant aeroplane. We must now engage defensive pulling 4.5 G off target , skilfully seeking the IAS that delivers 4.5G at full up elevator .

Of course in real life attack pattern planning may be substantially more complicated. All that this tutorial can do is provide the basics which most flight simulation enthusiasts ignore. Even the basics of ground attack doctrines are interesting skills to learn. During any high angle attack we have a Minimum Descent Height (MDH) which relates to our personal skill and the terrain we intend to turn into as we engage defensive and then egress. Flight simulation realism requires us to give crew survival a high priority.

OPEN FIRE DOCTRINE.

Firing any weapon system while the target of that weapon system is outside the maximum range of the weapon system is obviously pointless. We can see ground targets inside the reflector sight long before there is any possibility that the rounds fired from our guns, or unguided bombs, will reach them. Creating a parallax compliance within the reflector sight does not provide a fire control solution. To create a fire control solution we must measure range and in any C.R.42 we create our IP accordingly so that when we 'roll in' we reach our DP as soon as we intercept the FAT. Then we dive to almost minus 35 pitch to sustain the minus 30 degree glideslope, (see below and Ba 65 tutorial) ,which allows us to measure range with the altimeter set to QFE.

As soon as we manage to line up our target we are already at the edge of our own gun parameters and can engage offensive. Long range fire is used to 'suppress' enemy activity at the target location. We often wish to change enemy combat posture from offensive to defensive. We often want the enemy AAA gun crew to seek cover or concealment, instead of shooting at us or our section leader who is high angle attacking the enemy company HQ log bunker at 90 degrees to our FAT. During 'suppression attacks' we hope to enforce an enemy posture change by firing with no valid lethal fire control solution. For any given weapon system there is a range at which its cone of dispersion creates a 'bullet density' which is adequate to 'suppress' enemy offensive capability, or 'damage' structures, and a much shorter range at which that weapon system has any significant chance of 'destroying' the target. Its suppression envelope is much larger than its lethal envelope. Its suppression range is much greater than its lethal range.

In children's video games there is no requirement to evaluate range and so attacks are conducted randomly with no planning The children playing the game pretend that the parallax sight they are using predicts where the bullets or bombs will impact the surface regardless of engagement range, regardless of glideslope, and regardless of launch velocity. They just pretend that the bullets and bombs will all travel down a path to wherever the centre of their parallax sight is, regardless of all the above. Outside of children's games, (and therefore during flight simulation), it is necessary to conserve 'ammunition of all kinds' until a valid fire control solution has been obtained which matches the intention of the attack.

In a jagdbomber our high angle attack pattern passes through a parallax complaint IP intended to provide the time we need to line up the attack before we achieve a valid fire control solution for suppressive machine gun fire from a vibrating, wobbling weapon platform. We are no longer armed with muskets and our open fire doctrine is no longer 'wait until you can see the whites of their eyes', but children playing video games are wildly optimistic about the slant range at which vintage era weapon systems could engage. From an aeroplane in turbulent motion, in a turbulent fluid which is itself already in turbulent motion, even 12.7mm machine guns should not be used to generate suppressive fire against threats whose slant range exceeded 1500M. We place our IP at 1.5 miles (2200M) so that by the time we have 'rolled in hard' to the FAT we are at 2000M slant range. That is our descent point (DP) when we dive, and once we become sufficiently skilful we can line the target up precisely within our HUD, having measured (not guessed) bullet path range and glideslope and azimuth by the time we reach 1500M slant range. The intention of a strafing attack is suppressive and we must (train to) develop the skill to 'line up' the target using aileron and elevator after passing through a precisely parallax positioned IP and subsequent DP.

Nothing about real world combat doctrines is random and made up on the spur of the moment. Simulation of real world combat aviation doctrines requires us to (train to) comply with a precise attack plan, based on enemy AAA, and aircraft specific allied gun parameters, followed by acquisition of an enduring fire control solution, which incorporates a mission specific open fire doctrine, and a mission specific cease fire doctrine. These in turn all depend on the skills of parallax compliance.

CEASE FIRE DOCTRINE.

Due to the turbulent and imprecise motion of our airborne weapon platform we can only hope to destroy / mission kill a soft target with machine gun fire from ranges inside 200M. That would require us to be firing on the target while below 100M! By the time we are close enough to attack a soft target with lethal bullet density, even in a fixed gear biplane, we are usually closing that target at around 150 metres/second. Opening fire with machine guns outside a slant = bullet path range of 200M is only ever suppressive / damaging, yet we are never within lethal gun parameters of a ground target because we must engage defensive before we collide with the target!

We must engage defensive no later than;

1) our Minimum Descent Height, or

2) When our dive reaches a profile drag just short of structural failure at Vne, or

3) Before the controls become so heavy that we cannot manoeuvre well enough to either aim or take evasive action.

Unlike the Breda 65 the Falco has no Vne and its controls will not freeze until our profile drag abuse is far above the compliant profile drag for unguided bomb release at 400M slant range on the minus 30 degree glideslope. Our cease fire doctrine is simply an MDH briefed for that minus 30 degree final approach, just like any other final approach.

MINIMUM DESCENT HEIGHT (MDH).

In a jagdbomber we intend to engage defensive on reaching a height of 200M, at a target (slant = bullet path) range of 400M, and therefore less than three seconds before we collide with the target. We must not leave it too late! Our Minimum Descent Height is a function of aircraft type control responsiveness. The Falco is very responsive and even at very high IAS we can delay engaging defensive until we reach 200M QFE. An aeroplane with heavy unresponsive controls must disengage sooner at equal IAS. A pilot with inadequate skill to engage defensive precisely must disengage sooner than the aeroplane specific MDH.

Pretending that we have the skills of a fully qualified and experienced pilot is a conceit. During flight simulation of airliners we should never pretend that our IFR approach minima are those of qualified airline pilots. Our minima are always higher. Exactly the same is true during combat simulation. We need to evaluate our personal skill regularly and we need to monitor and evaluate our growing skill frequently so that we can slowly reduce our personal minima towards the real world legal or doctrinal minima. An experienced Falco pilot could cope with an MDH of 200M at over 450 KmIAS during a strafing attack down a minus 30 degree glideslope. We may need a higher MDH.

Remember during strafing a steeper dive from a closer IP reduces rounds on target because the lined up component of the dive starts already inside our own (and enemy) 12.7mm gun parameters, and must end sooner! There are few reasons to dive bomb vertically, and none at all to strafe vertically, or along any glideslope more steep than our Falco specific IP delivers. A less steep glideslope fails to disclose the target and prevents range-finding using the altimeter.

CONE OF DISPERSION - SPLASH PATTERN - BULLET DENSITY.

Machine guns are just that. They are machinery. The cyclic rate cited in the 'Boys Big Book (web page) of Wonder Weapons' is a maximum. The gun parts have inertia. The machinery takes time to spool up to the propaganda 'cyclic rate'. In practice each of our Breda machine guns will manage to fire just ten rounds in a one second burst (600 rpm). A WW2 fighter is a small target, and a truck is smaller still. Most rounds fired at a fighter aeroplane sized target will miss the target even if it is exactly at the centre of their cone of dispersion, if fired from outside 400M, and during a strafing attack they always will be!

If we were to sustain the attack, for too long to avoid collision, and we fired both machine guns during the one second before, and one second after, reaching our own 'lethal gun parameters' (at 200M range) we could create a splash pattern which contained just 40 rounds. Most, but by no means all, of which would hit a 'WW2 fighter size' target from an average range of 200M. It is still a matter of probability not certainty whether the 24 or so rounds that actually hit the stationary target would 'kill / destroy' the (fighter aeroplane) target. Only 12 of the 40 rounds fired during those two seconds would hit a truck which had half of the surface area, and we must never approach that closely at 150 metres /sec closure!

A cone (of dispersion) is a series of circles whose area is the square of their radius. If we double our open / cease fire range the radius of the cone of dispersion doubles and the rounds that will hit must be divided by four. At an average of 400M range 20 rounds fired in one second from a vibrating and wobbling aeroplane will score only 3 hits on an aeroplane and only 1 on a truck.! Firing a perfectly aimed one second burst at an average slant range of 800M we expect to obtain no hits on a fighter aeroplane, let alone a truck. Obtaining kills is much harder in real life than it is in children's video games. Now remember in real life all of this requires absolutely perfect aiming, with every part of our fire control solution perfectly achieved and sustained , and assumes our target is not moving!

This is not about inaccurate aiming. Almost all of the rounds fired always miss when aimed perfectly from a weapon platform which is the opposite of rigid weapon mount.

Ground attack aircraft do not need a large number of guns just to Suppress Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) or to suppress other ground targets to induce posture change by strafing, but they must have many guns to inflict significant damage on soft targets. During the same attack a Gladiator obtains twice as many hits, a Hurricane I achieves four times as many hits, and a twelve gun Hurricane II achieves six times as many hits. Suppressive effect has little correlation to the number of guns mounted, but damage inflicted on soft targets is linear. This made any C.R.42 spectacularly lacking in combat utility for ground attack if it could only strafe and could not bomb.

Simulating what happens in real life, and the resulting compliant doctrines, and playing entertaining video games are not the same thing at all. The reality is that (aircraft mounted) machine guns (and cannon) behave as long range shotguns, not automatically reloading sniper rifles. It is only because their cone of dispersion (scatter pattern) is huge that mere humans manage to hit anything with some of the rounds inside the huge (shotgun) splash pattern. In reality strafing with machine guns is used to 'suppress' threats or 'damage' soft targets, not to 'kill' or 'destroy' soft targets, even though purely by chance some soft targets may be 'killed' during a long series of suppression attacks. If this were not so there would be no need for a superior doctrine of 'lay down attack with cluster munitions'. Of course if an enemy is daft enough to park vehicles close together and does not disperse them setting only one of them on fire, during a prolonged cadena attack by a formation of strafing aeroplanes, may lead to the destruction of many others as the fire spreads after the attackers are already in egress, and the damage inflicted may then be spectacular, but strafing Falcos seem to have achieved that kind of success only once over the Sudan (see supplied history) .

In real life a strafing attack with only machine guns, (or cannon), is not prosecuted to lethal range. If we need to destroy a soft target we will need to attack it at very close range, and we will always do so with a high explosive weapon system, never a machine gun, because outside children's video games, in real life it is never worth the risk of losing a combat aeroplane and crew while making lethal attacks on ground targets using only machine guns!

In practice only 'lay down attacks' with HE weapon systems have an MDH below 200M AGL.

The camera gun footage we see in documentaries, in which targets blow up as a result of strafing, is the footage chosen at the time for propaganda purposes, from hundreds of hours of camera gun footage in which nothing blew up and all the targets were only damaged. In any large enough sample some hits are 'critical hits' which manage to 'destroy' a target that in many other similar attacks was only damaged by the same number of rounds fired.

EGRESS PLANNING AND EXECUTION.

During our attack pattern, (or perhaps by pre planning using a map), we identify a terrain feature (landmark) which lies at the far end of our egress vector. When we engage defensive against the target area Flak envelope, by pulling 4.5G, we are entirely 'head up' looking for that egress vector landmark as we seek terrain masking and avoid terrain collision. We must not assess compliance with our planned egress vector 'head down' using gauges.

If we bravely continue our attack after we first obtain a valid fire control solution, to our personal MDH, we must cease fire with sufficient height remaining to fly a controlled 4.5G turn into our egress lane versus the relevant terrain. We plan carefully which way we will turn, potentially for further cadena attacks or just back to our front line of troops, based on sortie planning terrain elevation data and identified threat envelopes. The temptation at cease fire height just above our personal MDH is to pull the nose above the vertical. We must instead develop the skill to transition to a slightly descending flight, down perhaps a minus 3 degree glideslope when pulling up from our minus 30 degree attack run glideslope

During ground attack operations, in the pioneer and vintage phases of aviation history, our attack pattern must be elevated above the target to allow early location and positive identification. We cannot make use of cover or concealment, (terrain masking or cloud), as we fly the attack pattern. By definition during the pioneer phase of aviation history we have no means to aim lofted bomb attacks, rocket attacks or guided weapon attacks. They only exist in later phases of aviation history. In the pioneer phase of aviation history we fly the attack pattern at a height which places us outside the target lethal threat envelope and descend into it only after the carefully planned and placed IP as we roll in and dive to engage the (next) target.

However after we cease fire we can and should seek concealment behind local smoke or cloud, or better still we can seek cover, (terrain masking), remaining (slightly) nose down until we have blocking terrain between us and the primary threat. We sustain terrain masking until clear of all local identified threat envelopes (clear of the target area) and we may define that as a minimum of 30 seconds outbound (at very high IAS). We may be weaving along a valley floor and between plumes of smoke.

We must (train to) enter and maintain very low level flight while also turning hard at 4.5 G from a minus 30 degree high angle attack glideslope. (More than) thirty seconds after we achieve egress vector, at very low level, with our speed initially always in excess of 400 KmIAS, we climb at Vy = 200 KmIAS and back to (at least) a height (not altitude) of 1000M, before returning to the (same or next) IP using our parallax cues (if we are briefed to 'Cadena' attack again with a different weapon system). Else after our final high angle attack on different targets in that target area we continue climb to an altitude of 7500M and return to base. We climb away from terrain masking only after we are outside enemy gun parameters and we employ only TOGA pressione (<= 0.86C) unless we are still under attack in which case we may decide to employ COMBAT POWER or even WEP, but they are not appropriate engine management choices just because we are in egress from a target.

EXPERIMENTS PROVIDE SUPERIOR UNDERSTANDING COMPARED TO 'BOOK LEARNING'.

You will have noticed that this tutorial has not identified the crucial minimum IAS required to sustain 4.5G continuously with the stick full aft, at full throttle. This tutorial is not a book. It is a tutorial which explains how to achieve realism when using the Fiat C.R.42 for combat skills training within our flight simulator. This tutorial explains how to perform the necessary training and evaluation exercises. It does not provide all the answers. Learning what some of the answers are (for a C.R.42) is your job.

In order to engage defensive optimally in the presence of a threat we must be able to pull G just short of GLOC continuously, and to minimise our turn radius at that G we must control our profile drag (IAS) perfectly to be the minimum profile drag (IAS) compatible with avoiding human GLOC, with the stick held full aft to force the elevators full up. In a piston engined aeroplane, the pitch required to sustain that target IAS is always negative.

This requires very careful IAS targeting and that targeting has nothing to do with the 'corner speed' of the aeroplane. We will need to sustain 'only' 4.5G while we engage defensive because we are the weakest part of the whole weapon system and after we 'attain' 4.5G we must not dive more steeply than the minimum negative pitch required to sustain the target IAS needed to 'sustain' 4.5G.

There are two stages to 'engaging defensive' in piston engined aeroplanes. Against an air to air threat, (which we should assume during early training), we normally start in level flight at tactical cruise IAS, and we must increase profile drag (IAS) over the wings and tailplane to a higher value to attain 4.5G with the elevators full up. We need to move the aeroplane to that higher profile drag quickly. The only way to increase profile drag (IAS) quickly is to dive hard. But the steep dive angle which causes IAS to rise quickly to the target value needed to generate 4.5G is also going to cause the aeroplane to exceed that IAS soon after. To engage defensive we need to know yet another profile drag (IAS) target. We must turn to spoil enemy fire control solutions so we must spiral dive hard to our target IAS and then we reduce our negative pitch in the spiral dive to sustain the compliant IAS target, preventing IAS from rising further.,

Make sure you have G effects turned ON in the realism menu. Take the Falco up to 7500M. The real Falco did not have an accelerometer (G meter). It did not need one. A pilot can tell when he achieves 'grey out' just short of GLOC just fine without one, and eventually we must (train to) use that physiological cue too. At first however it is a good idea to press (SHIFT+Z) twice to invoke a current G read out at the top of the MSFS screen.

In level flight having achieved the cruise condition cited in the on screen handling notes, increase to 2520 RPM and advance to full throttle. Now roll the aeroplane beyond 90 degrees and pull the stick full aft to induce a spiral dive. Cause IAS to increase rapidly in the turning dive. Watch both the ASI and the G reading. At some IAS, above tactical cruise IAS, we can induce and sustain 4.5G with the stick full aft. Note that minimum required IAS to generate and sustain 4.5G and remember it. We must always target that IAS in a spiral dive to engage defensive. To conserve potential energy whilst increasing kinetic energy we must use the thrust parameters above. At very high altitude full throttle does not invoke WEP since above our COMBAT CEILING it cannot even invoke COMBAT POWER.

Now practice, practice, practice continuously sustaining exactly the spiral dive IAS which sustains 4.5 G at full up elevator and full throttle. This happens at a specific nose down pitch, but at the moment we first achieve 4.5G, (while increasing profile drag to that IAS), we are more nose down than the pitch needed to just sustain that IAS without further increase. During Falco type conversion training, having achieved the compliant IAS, roll to a steeper spiral to increase dive pitch to increase IAS further still holding the stick full aft. You will soon suffer GLOC. Release the joystick back pressure and recover. In a Falco we cannot possibly achieve structural failure by pulling too many G. We will always suffer GLOC first.

Remember whenever we engage defensive we cannot use elevators to control Vertical Speed Increment (VSI). The elevators are always full up. We are always spiral diving using only aileron and rudder to control VSI. We are using elevator to maximise turn rate at every IAS, whether we target IAS compliantly to minimise height loss or not.

Repeat this exercise over and over again until it is second nature and you can recognise the physiological onset of GLOC without using a text cheat mode at the top of the MSFS screen. Learn and remember the profile drag (IAS) you must generate (abuse the tail with) in order to sustain 4.5G. It is a very important IAS target. We must (train to) sustain the compliant IAS 'indefinitely'.

However right at the start of this tutorial I reminded everyone what Newton explained long ago;

Radius of turn = TAS^2 / G

In every aeroplane that can ever exist.

The constant we seek when we engage defensive is really a constant velocity (TAS) and not a constant profile drag (IAS) impacting the tailplane and elevators. In high thin air the profile drag required to maximise attainable turn rate is (slightly) lower than in thick air at low level. Nevertheless having no TAS readout from an on board computer we really do target the constant IAS value which you must discover. We monitor our progression into GLOC. If we seem to be sinking into GLOC, (proceeding to tunnel vision), we reduce our target IAS slightly. The higher the altitude at which we are forced to engage defensive the lower the IAS that is 'perfect', but no mathematics are involved.

Now starting from a specific high altitude repeat the evaluation, but now measure how much height you lose while achieving 4.5G from level cruising flight starting from tactical cruise IAS. Your task is to (train to) increase your skill to minimise the height lost while achieving 4.5G, starting from 1G at cruise IAS. Practice, practice, practice.

Once you have learned to achieve 4.5G with minimum height loss, and then to sustain 4.5G with minimum nose down pitch and height loss, note how much height you lose with 4.5G already applied during a further turn through 360 degrees. Think about how those two parts of the doctrine relate to the minimum height at which you should (can) successfully engage defensive. Think about the implications for minimum tactical cruising height, (not altitude), above local terrain, in the event of low en route cloud base.

During attacks on ground targets we engage defensive with profile drag (IAS) on the tail far above both cruise IAS and the compliant IAS for maximum attained turn rate. As we reach 200M AGL, when 400M slant range from the target, on the minus 30 degree glideslope, we will need to reduce pitch, to reduce IAS to the complaint IAS for engaging defensive. Do not train for that more precise and demanding skill until you have first mastered the requirement to engage defensive quickly and precisely from level cruising flight at medium and high level. When we engage defensive against a ground threat that we have high angle attacked we must not open the throttle until we have reduced to our target IAS else the turn will tighten and we will suffer GLOC at a very low height.

AIRCRAFT SUSTAINABLE TURN RATE versus HUMAN SUSTAINABLE TURN RATE.

An aeroplane's sustainable turn rate refers to the maximum turn rate it can sustain without losing altitude. It varies with altitude since in every aeroplane it declines to zero at 'absolute ceiling', whatever it was at lower level, since zero turn rate available without losing altitude is the definition of 'absolute ceiling'. Sustainable turn rate has only theoretical relevance to the practical operation of aeroplanes. Some specialised reconnaissance sorties, and interception of those sorties by interceptors aside, we should never climb any aeroplane above its 'operational ceiling' which is often only a fraction of its also practically irrelevant 'service ceiling'.

In the vintage era of aviation history useful turn rate, was limited by human GLOC with no G suit. Sustained near GLOC turns are never compatible with level flight in piston engined aeroplanes since piston engines are never powerful enough to sustain near human GLOC (4.5G) in level flight. Vintage era aeroplanes all need to sustain 'high' IAS in spiral dives to engage defensive. It follows that piston engined aeroplanes engage defensive with maximum safe thrust applied, even though most modern era 'fast jets' may need to engage defensive with minimum safe thrust applied to shed excess cruise IAS, and may even pitch the nose up from cruise to spiral climb to achieve the IAS they must sustain to deliver maximum attained turn rate. Fast jets may need to adjust to a more negative pitch after reducing to target IAS, but piston engined aeroplanes must pitch down hard to achieve complaint IAS and then reduce pitch to sustain compliant IAS.

Now remember the complaint IAS to engage defensive is the IAS which delivers 4.5 G with the elevator full up, not some randomly higher IAS causing a larger turn radius with the elevator randomly and only partially deflected. This is not a simplistic training exercise in which we learn to sustain 4.5G with IAS varying. This is training to sustain 4.5G with the elevator full up throughout, and in which we must therefore (train to) control pitch using only aileron and rudder while sustaining a spiral dive with elevator full up throughout. Sustaining 4.5G at higher IAS with only partial elevator deflection is much easier, but does not maximise attained turn rate. The goal is to sustain 4.5G with the lowest possible compatible IAS and the smallest possible turn radius while losing the least height possible, and that only happens with the elevators full up and also impacted by maximum safe propwash.

Unlike the older Breda 65 which had no IFR capability the Falco eventually acquired radio (see supplied history) and had limited IFR gauges. It therefore has a turn rate gauge with which to fly compliant ZZ IFR procedures (see 2008 Propliner Tutorial). Outside of take off, final approach and landing, the slip ball should always be centred using rudder and auto co-ordination should be off in the realism screen, else it may be impossible to control yaw during take off, and during ground handling. Sustaining zero slip while spiral diving at 4.5G is just another skill that must be learned, but in practice we will use aileron and rudder to control IAS in the spiral dive associated with 'engaging defensive' because the elevator is always full up.

ENERGY STATE CONSERVATION.

To fly a sustained turn just short of GLOC in any piston engined aeroplane we must dive to sustain 'high' profile drag (IAS) over the tailplane whose variable camber and vectored Co-efficient of Lift is controlled with elevators. How long we can sustain a near GLOC turn depends on our initial height and our negative VSI in the dive. To engage defensive for the maximum time, (maximising our survival chances), we must initiate our defensive turn high above the local terrain and restrain profile drag (IAS) to the minimum value required by restricting our dive angle and maximising our screw thrust.

Our energy comes in two forms. Potential and kinetic. Height gives us potential energy which we can turn into kinetic energy at will by diving. We must not squander our precious potential energy (height) any faster than necessary. We dive only at the negative pitch needed to achieve and sustain our very specific profile drag (IAS) target for engaging defensive with thrust maximised.

Cruising pioneer era combat aeroplanes with little potential energy (height) in a non radar environment is just plain dumb. Height = potential energy = survival in the pioneer phase of aviation history. We must never give enemy air superiority fighters a potential energy advantage by cruising lower than their CAP height. We must never grant them the only chance they have of intercepting us. The slower our fighter the higher we must cruise.

Having cruised at great height and with great potential energy, our skill to move the aeroplane to 4.5 G applied, from any other energy state, quickly and precisely, is a key (flight simulation) skill. Yet it is a skill that many flight simulation enthusiasts never practice or acquire. Remember the target IAS is the IAS which delivers 4.5G with the stick full aft, not any random IAS that can deliver 4.5G with the stick in any random position. When we are forced to engage defensive against an air to air threat we need to dive at the lowest IAS compatible with generation of 4.5G to conserve our potential energy (minimise height lost).

SKILL LEVELS ARE PERSONAL.

We must (train to) turn the Falco, just short of GLOC, for as long as possible, bleeding as little potential energy as possible. This skill must be practised over and over again until that skill is second nature. Once it is second nature experiment with the minimum height you need to first achieve and sustain 4.5G through further descending turns of 360 degrees. Height is not the same thing as altitude, but the altitude you lose is also the minimum height you can engage defensive from! Measure your own skill progress precisely because you need to know how skilful you have become. You are the weak link in this 1939 weapon platform, not its flight dynamics or its structure.

We should not attempt 'low level' sorties, under a 'low' cloud base, in the Falco until we have evaluated our personal skill in relation to those goals. The limiting factor is not a function of the weapon platform. It is a function of individual pilot skill and training, in real life, and during simulation. The purpose of 'realistic' flight simulation flight dynamics is to measure pilot error (or increasing skill) and impose / allow the consequence of skill proficiency / deficiency. The aeroplane we chose to simulate the operation of today constantly tests our acquired skill to navigate it precisely in 4D to maximise its potential.

(GUN) PITCH (VECTOR) versus FLIGHT PATH (VECTOR) = GLIDESLOPE.

Fixed forward firing guns can be mounted so that their pitch matches the fuselage datum line = aircraft pitch, or they may be canted slightly upwards so that their cone of dispersion intercepts the fuselage datum line at a set distance ahead of the aircraft despite bullet drop en route to that location. In any event fixed forward guns are hardly ever pointing where the aeroplane is going!

In any aeroplane being flown head up we must be able to see where we are going, (where the flight path vector is going), but most of the time neither the guns, nor any gun sight, point where the aeroplane is going. Our flight path vector can easily be more than 12 degrees below aircraft (gun) pitch as wing angle of attack (AoA) varies with our profile drag (IAS) abuse. Many flight simulation enthusiasts never come to terms with this and so never develop the skills required to control (gun) pitch independently from flight path vector (glideslope) in any phase of the flight. In all aircraft that skill is crucial during a compliant attack pattern to achieve a valid fire control solution, but it is just as vital during an approach to land down a minus 3 degree glideslope at quite different aircraft pitch, (see earlier in this tutorial).

When we strafe, (or fire guns at aircraft in flight), the fuselage gun vector is normally (almost) parallel to our aircraft pitch and therefore wholly disassociated from our aircraft's flight path vector = glideslope.

When we (train to) to fly a final approach to land we must never confuse our complaint pitch with our compliant glideslope. In a Falco our complaint pitch is around 8 degrees and our complaint glideslope is around minus 2 degrees. When we (train to) fly a final approach to strafe (or bomb) a target we must never confuse our pitch with our constant compliant glideslope of minus 30 degrees. They are only identical at one particular IAS and during a high angle attack our IAS increases quickly.

Outside of children's video games, during realistic flight simulation of classic or modern era aircraft, we choose whether to cruise piston engined aeroplanes with nose down pitch, or zero pitch, or nose up pitch depending on the mean headwind / tailwind vector;

.......see the 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.Calclassic.com/tutorials

Regardless of the cruise pitch we decide to apply during each captaincy decision making cycle of the classic or modern era cruise phase, by definition our glideslope in level flight is always zero degrees. Our aircraft pitch can potentially be minus 4 or plus 12 on a zero degree glideslope. We make that captaincy decision and then we target variably chosen pitch whilst also (obviously) targeting a zero degree glideslope in level flight. A heavy bomber normally makes an attack run along a zero degree glideslope, but its pitch is usually significantly greater at the target IAS for that level bomb run.

Nothing changes when we dive (or climb). Our pitch will be below or above our glideslope by the same margin at the same profile drag (IAS). The gun vector and the aircraft glideslope vector can differ by a very large margin. During a high angle attack it is our job to impose the correct pitch to deliver the correct (but different) glideslope. When (during cruise) we reduce profile drag to an IAS, below design cruise IAS, (to ride a tailwind for as long as possible), our fuselage pitch = gun vector is positive and pitched above our glideslope of zero degrees. When we increase IAS = profile drag, (to battle a headwind during cruise), our fuselage pitch = gun vector is negative and below our glideslope, (which is still zero degrees).

With a clean wing, unaugmented by flaps, fuselage and gun pitch only equals glideslope (flight path vector) if profile drag = design tactical cruise profile drag (IAS). At any other IAS fuselage and gun pitch is always above or below our glideslope.

During a high angle attack, even though we reduce (usually fully close) throttle and invoke an inefficient airscrew RPM, (see later), our profile drag (IAS) soon exceeds design cruise profile drag (IAS) and fuselage pitch = gun vector is soon depressed below aircraft glideslope. To fly a minus 30 degree glideslope at high profile drag (IAS) we always need to invoke a pitch more negative than minus 30. While flying an early or mid series production Falco we have no artificial horizon. We cannot measure pitch and we cannot measure glideslope. Only some late production varieties of Falco have a vacuum system to drive an artificial horizon. Even then the artificial horizon indicates pitch not glideslope.

In order to bomb targets using any parallax sight we must impose a known and constant glideslope. Although we attempt to 'set up' a compliant minus 30 degree glideslope via the compliant IP that we have just studied, the compliance is only adequate for strafing. IP roll in compliance alone does not deliver a sufficiently precise glideslope to allow bomb aiming in early and mid series production C.R.42s and consequently they never had bomb racks. For bomb aiming we require an artificial horizon to impose the compliant pitch, to impose the different complaint glideslope, which we sustain to MDH, and we must use throttle to achieve weapon release IAS as we reach MDH. The steeper the glideslope the harder it is to control IAS at MDH. Conventional high altitude bombing and ultra low height 'lay down' bombing from the zero degree glideslope are potentially more accurate than high angle bombing, but aeroplanes with nose engines prevent target tracking with the parallax compliance sight from a zero degree glideslope unless an air bomber / bomb aimer / bombardier lays prone and sights the target through an optically flat glass panel (or opening) in the floor provided for that purpose. In a single engined single crew jagdbomber, without modern era electronic CCIP weapon aiming we must use pitch to measure glideslope, knowing that glideslope is different.

So the question is, 'how much different'?

GLIDESLOPE versus PITCH

The possibility of having a useful answer to that question depends on our ability to achieve a seven part fire control solution which includes an IAS target. For every given IAS (at 1G) aircraft (gun) pitch is a precise amount different to aircraft glideslope. Below design cruise IAS, aircraft = gun pitch exceeds glideslope, and above design cruise IAS, aircraft = gun pitch is more negative than glideslope (in all aeroplanes). The valid precision bombing fire control solution for the C.R.42AS therefore requires us to release the external bombs, within a specified IAS range within which the difference between gun pitch and glideslope is known and hardly varies.

The two ASIs in the real Falco are unable to measure profile drag exceeding 450 KmIAS even though the Falco can withstand much greater profile drag abuse. During a precision attack with bombs we need as long as possible to 'line up' the target after we dive at 2000M. Slant range. Consequently we need the IAS target range for weapon release to be 'high', but not so high that it is beyond the ability of our ASI to measure, and we need the relevant datum line parallax compliance cue to be projected onto the reflector sight (HUD) in a position which is correct only for that 'high' but measurable IAS (range).

The process by which the HUD reticle is matched to the fire control solution parameters is 'weapon system harmonisation'. Our armourer tilts the mirror in our San Giorgio Type B reflector sight to different angles to match the doctrine we must train to use when flying that aeroplane type.

How our armourer tilts the HUD mirror depends on;

1) whether our guns are parallel to fuselage datum line

2) the attack doctrine (glideslope angle), *and weapon launch velocity*, that type of aeroplane employs

During ground attack that glideslope will be minus 30 degrees, but as IAS alters, pitch versus glideslope alters, because wing angle of attack alters with IAS at constant glideslope. In the vintage phase of aviation history our (Italian) armourer can only harmonise our HUD for a single attack glideslope which we must then (train to) employ within our seven part fire control solution.

Jagdbomber and schlachtkampf pilots badly needed rocket projectiles whose velocity increased after weapon release and whose impact point was then within the HUD when launched from a shallow glideslope at highly variable IAS, but in the pioneer era only the Soviet Union had understood that need and was already developing the necessary weapon systems. Rocket projectiles soon gave the Soviet Air Force an overwhelming advantage in schlachtkampf = sturmoviki = CAS sorties which the RAF / RN would soon copy, followed by the USN /USMC / USAAF. Italy, Germany and Japan continued with their misplaced belief in sturzkampf or sturmkampf and never deployed superior schlachtkampf weapon systems and doctrines in sufficient quantities.

The armourer of our C.R.42AS has tilted the mirror to harmonise our HUD for a minus 30 degrees glideslope *and* a profile drag in the 400 to 450 KmIAS range. It is 'harmonised' for 425 KmIAS on a minus 30 degree glideslope. The negative pitch in the relevant attack doctrine is therefore the negative pitch which delivers a minus 30 degree glideslope when IAS is between 400 and 450 KmIAS. This high profile drag range is far in excess of design cruise profile drag and that means that if we pitch to almost minus 35 degrees our glideslope will be close to the required minus 30 degrees while our profile drag exceeds 400 KmIAS and is below 450 KmIAS.

In books for public consumption concerning combat doctrine and compliance we will usually encounter deliberately vague references suggesting that high angle attack doctrine is associated with dives of 'between 30 and 35 degrees'. The authors of such books are deliberately avoiding the issue of whether the reference is to glideslope or pitch. During flight simulation we must remove that ambiguity!

For the reasons explained above the glideslope required is minus 30 in all correctly designed ground attack aeroplanes. Our fire control solution requires us to achieve almost minus35 degrees pitch (with IAS between 400 and 450 KmIAS) so that our glideslope is close enough to minus 30 degrees, at the moment of external bomb release, and of course we must then place the compliant part of the aiming reticle over the target.

This is why application of the vintage era fire control solution starts before the IP. The DP from which we pitch down to minus 35 pitch has to be 'pre calculated' to place the target on a minus 30 degree glideslope, as we pitch down to minus 35 pitch. In a Fiat C.R.42AS delivered from mid 1941 onwards we have the means required to measure pitch precisely (see later), but the pilot of an early or mid series production Falco delivered before the summer of 1941 does not. He must rely entirely on his attack pattern IP parallax compliance and his DP timing to place him on the minus 30 degree glideslope even if his eyepoint is far enough forward in the aeroplane to place the target inside the HUD on a minus 30 degrees glideslope. That was just good enough for strafing, but not for bombing.

ARMING and AIMING COMPLIANCE.

Italian aero engines delivered little power, and Italian fighter procurement was badly misjudged, but Italy was already producing head up weapon aiming systems far in advance of anything available in the U.S., Japan or U.S.S.R. Only Britain and Germany had superior range finding and weapon aiming technology. In British aircraft the real HUD controls already allowed the pilot to dial fire control solutions for different weapon systems and different open fire doctrines. In the C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW the Italian San Giorgio Type B HUD provided only a singular aiming reticle for all weapon systems and all open fire doctrines. This made controlling the HUD simple, but left the pilot performing much of the Continuously Computed Impact Point (CCIP) fire control solution in his head. In the C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW the HUD aiming cue was singular, and therefore not electronically slaved to the weapon arming panel.

Although the HUD reticle is singular and immovable (in flight) it is also multi part. Different parts of the reticle are used to aim the same weapon system at different stand off ranges, and different parts of the singular reticle are used to aim different weapon systems from identical stand off range. Prior to any attack the real pilot must arm the weapon system of interest by connecting its arming switch to the relevant trigger or release switch, making sure all others are disarmed ('weapons safe').

A 100Kg bomb and a 12.7mm round will not impact the same location if launched together. The Falco ground attack pilot of 1941-45, whether Italian in the C.R.42AS or German in the C.R.42LW, could not yet control their San Giorgio HUD data by varying the angle of the mirror in the reflector sight in flight. They could not move the singular reticle up and down the HUD, to place the centre of the cone of dispersion cue to match the different open fire doctrines required by each of their weapon systems, even though a British pilot already could.

Consequently the Italian or German C.R.42AS/LW pilot had to 'allow for' the different ballistics of the particular weapon system he had armed when seeking and imposing the valid seven part fire control solution. If we are confused concerning the weapon system we armed and we use the wrong part of the singular and immobile aiming reticle and we aim perfectly for the wrong weapon system the weapon will release and it will miss.

To achieve parallax compliance at the moment of weapon release we must place the weapon compliant component of the singular and immobile aiming reticle over the target.

Our external bombs, potentially of different mass, on different sorties, against different types of target, have the same shape and ballistic characteristics regardless of mass. It is *not* mass that determines how quickly things fall when subjected to 1.0 G by planet Earth. Bullets of different calibre and mass do not need different fire control solutions for that reason. They need different fire control solutions because they are launched with different (muzzle) velocity and will travel different distances down range whilst falling the same distance in unit time. Everything in aviation relates to TIME not distance.

In 1940-45 our Italian fire control computer does not have an electronic velocity (KTAS) feed, nor an electronic profile drag (KIAS) feed, nor a ground speed (KTS) feed, nor an electronic pitch feed, nor an electronic glideslope feed, nor an electronic slip feed, nor a G force feed, to move the fire control solution up / down / across our HUD electronically as we incompetently vary airframe abuse.

In 1940-45 the fire control solution our Italian HUD provides is correct only if we achieve all targeting parameters of the FIRE CONTROL SOLUTION simultaneously. They are;

1) 400 to 450 KmIAS

2) Minus 30 degree glideslope applied as almost minus 35 pitch

3) compliant slant range (2 x height)

4) compliant parallax cue for armed weapon system overlaid on target

5) zero roll

6) zero slip

Of course children playing video games ignore all except half of (3), and the video game obligingly delivers 'success' that would be failure in real life. We must also comply with (7) = MDH based on our personal skill acquired, else we will crash and

7 = MDH is our unguided weapon launch point.

WEAPON HARMONISATION & MATCHING WEAPON SYSTEM to RETICLE CUES.

The weapon system of interest is the one we arm during the attack pattern for this attack, after we identified the type of target we intended to attack (hard or soft) and after we decided whether to suppress or destroy that target.

Children playing video games just pretend that all weapon systems are aimed with the same part of the reticle, and that a single weapon system can be aimed with the same part of the reticle from all ranges. Obviously the laws of physics preclude both. To encounter realism we must (train to) use all of the reticle and all of its parallax aiming cues. We must adjust the sights of a rifle according to the range of the target to allow for bullet drop based on the time that the bullet is in flight to the target. We evaluate the target range and we adjust the rifle sight accordingly, but the Italian HUDs of 1938-45 were not adjustable (in flight).

When flying a pioneer era jadgbomber we *measure* (slant = bullet path) range as 2 x height by sustaining a minus 30 degree glideslope, which is the only glideslope with those range versus height parameters In a C.R.42AS / LW we achieve the minus 30 degree glideslope, by eventually diving at almost minus 35 pitch, with profile drag in the 400 to 450 KmIAS range. In any C.R.42 at any date our HUD has its mirror tilted accordingly before flight. It is *not* a 'range adjustable' parallax sight in the sense that a rifle has a range adjustable parallax sight. Our San Giorgio Type B HUD reflects a complex transparent reticle *of many parts* into the sight glass screen which we look through *with our head firmly planted against the supplied headrest to maintain parallax compliance* (using the developer encoded FS weapon aiming eyepoint invoked with the spacebar).

Designing a combat VC for use in any flight simulator is very complex development process. Many parallax compliance cues must be compliantly aligned by the software developers and the flight dynamics must also replicate the real fire control solution for that aircraft type!

The real laws of physics don't allow the bullets, or the bombs, to land on whatever scenery is in the middle of some computer window of random aspect ratio. randomly squashed to appear there using random SIZE_Y , at random VIEW_FORWARD_DIR at random ZOOM in a badly created '2D panel = Cockpit View', regardless of the range and IAS and G and slip and glideslope! A 2D flight simulation environment is only usable in children's games where both the laws of physics and the mathematics of parallax compliant scenery projection are set aside for entertainment purposes.

In theory our armourer can re-harmonise our reflector sight between flights, but he does so in accordance with doctrine issued by the chain of command. HQ may order sight harmonisation so that the cone of dispersion of 12.7mm rounds is centred on the tiny central circular reticle after travelling 200 metres, or 300, or 400 or 1500. Each engagement range has different bullet drop. We must (train to) use *all parts of the reticle* to measure open fire doctrine compliance in a pure 3D parallax compliant simulation environment. The supplied reticle has been harmonised by our armourer for air to ground use at 600 metres.

As we dive down a glideslope of minus 30 degrees when we reach a height of 300M at a slant (bullet path) range of 600M the centre of the cone of dispersion of the 12.7mm guns will overlay the object on the surface under the small centre gun circle of the reticle regardless of simulation ZOOM. That is only possible inside a pure 3D simulation environment.

Our armourer has employed variable mirror tilt to allow for our doctrine which requires us to achieve a minus 30 degree glideslope. We do *not* have a choice what doctrine we use to attack ground targets! What is true at 600M cannot be true at any other bullet path (slant) range. At 1500 metres slant range (height = 750M) the centre of 12.7mm aim is instead the gap between the lower wide arm of the 'gun cross' and where it becomes a narrow gun cross. The longer the rounds are in flight the more they fall (short).

Because (unlike a British pilot), we cannot adjust our Italian HUD, by altering mirror tilt during flight, we must (train to) overlay the compliant component of the 'fixed' parallax sight over the target to aim. In order to aim (even a rifle) we must evaluate our (slant = bullet path) range from the target. In an aeroplane the only way we can measure bullet path range in order to overlay the compliant component of our reticle on the target is by flying a minus 30 degree glideslope which has the trigonometric result that slant range = 2 x current height on our altimeter which we have set to QFE so that it indicates height, (not altitude using QNH).

As we dive and slant range reduces we must (train to) skilfully alter which part of the reticle overlays the target, *but we must not vary glideslope*. When we are 750M above the target at a range of 1500M for perfect suppressive fire 12.7mm aiming we must overlay the gap in the gun cross on the target, but by the time we reach a height of 300M and a slant range of 600M we must instead overlay the centre dot. Inside a slant range of 600M the centre of our cone of 12.7mm dispersion will be above the centre dot.

These range-finding parameters are only true on a minus 30 degree glideslope and they are only true if we initiate the dive at the complaint profile drag which is 220 KmIAS. The design of the reflected reticle, (length of gun cross and diameter of gun circle), carefully match our change of velocity as we dive down a minus 30 degree glideslope, starting from 220 KmIAS and terminating at (ideally) 425 KmIAS, just as we reach MDH

As far as our command chain is concerned our sight has been 'gun harmonised' to match a machine gun open fire doctrine = 750M slant range and a cease fire doctrine = 450M slant range and will function 'adequately' if we keep the centre dot on the target throughout the less than 3 seconds it takes us to travel those 300 metres, (150 metres either side of the 600M harmonisation range), during which we fire a less than 3 second burst discharging about 50 rounds total from our two machine guns. Half a second after cease fire at a range of 450M we are at 400M slant range and at 200M height and we must engage defensive applying 4.5G to turn away hard from the (immobile) target. Of the 50 rounds fired from an average range of 600M if we aim perfectly maybe two to five will hit a 'Gladiator' sized target and perhaps half as many will hit a truck. The rest will hit the surface all around, scattered across a much larger cone of dispersion compliantly centred on the centre of the target. One or two more rounds may ricochet into the target, depending on the scenery surface type. Relegating aeroplanes with only two machine guns to strafe ground targets was an act of desperation, but the British had shot down all the four gun Breda 65s, and almost all of the four gun Fiat C.R.32quaters by the spring of 1941, and so desperate actions were the only choice and two gun C.R.42s with no bomb racks increasingly populated the tactical bomber wings of the Regia Aeronautica!

A shallower dive fails to keep the target visible above the nose and inside the HUD. A steeper dive forces us to engage defensive at longer stand off range with fewer hits on target however much ammo we hosed around while a huge distance above (from) the target. There are some arguments in favour of vertical dive bombing, but no arguments in favour of vertical dive strafing. All strafing needs to be only 'high angle' in any aeroplane. If a minus 30 degree glideslope makes the target visible inside the HUD, it is always the compliant angle for strafing.

Attacking down a minus 30 degree glideslope is the compliant ground attack doctrine for all weapon systems in any type of C,R.42.

COMBAT PERSISTENCE DOCTRINE.

Those who play video games may object that they can simply 'walk' the splash pattern (cone of dispersion) of the rounds onto the target. We must consider why that may be either appropriate or inappropriate. Even in real life that is appropriate if the pilot has never acquired the skill to obtain gun fire control solutions before firing, but that skill deficiency causes that pilot to use about twice as many rounds to achieve the same number of hits.

The Breda 12.7mm machine gun delivers a muzzle velocity of 765 metres/sec and the 7.7mm Breda instead delivers only 730 metres/sec. Aerodynamic drag quickly reduces bullet velocity below muzzle velocity. Even after adding 100 m/s aeroplane velocity, if our command chain doctrine requires us to open fire at 750M slant range the bullets will not begin to impact until more than a second after firing. The pilot then needs time to locate the splash pattern and 'walk' it over the target using aileron and rudder. That might take a further two seconds.

Outside children's video games those three seconds are the entire engagement envelope! If we attempt to 'walk' the cone of dispersion onto a target, by the time we have the splash pattern (cone of dispersion) centred on the target we are already at 450M range and must pull 4.5 G off target! Those three seconds spent correcting poor aim are the entire engagement envelope! Worse a six second burst is much more likely to jam the guns. The Falco pilot can attempt to clear blockages using the blue cocking handle, but not during an attack!

Some aircraft designed for strafing had huge ammo tanks, but most did not. Single seat aircraft deployed for deep strike assault, else CAS operations, are required to attack the same target area more than once using cadena doctrine. At best an AAA gun crew can be suppressed for around 10 seconds if we obtain a valid fire control solution by 1500M slant range and then fire continuously while holding the cone of dispersion over them until we reach 400M slant range. During that one SEAD attack using both guns we will hose away 100 rounds per gun, (if neither jam)!

Not only do we not want to waste thirty more rounds per gun 'walking the cone of dispersion over the target'. If we open fire from 1800M then most machine gun rounds won't even reach the target! Outside of children's games and therefore during flight simulation we must (train to) aim our guns before we fire them.

Of course all the above assumes we have acquired the skill to achieve a fire control solution by the time we reach a height of 750M having carefully planned and executed our attack pattern at 1000M. We must employ a glideslope which allows a sustained fire control solution whether or not we have the skill to aim before we open fire. The longer it takes us to obtain the necessary fire control solution, after diving from a height of 1000M at 2000M slant range, the less time we have to engage the enemy Flak battery with suppressing fire. When our goal is to Suppress Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) we wish to engage that threat for up to ten seconds, firing 200 rounds (from two guns) *on target*. We wish those up to ten seconds of suppressing fire to coincide with another C.R.42AS or C.R.42LW precision high angle bombing attack on the insurgent dug out or a British tank.

Neither this tutorial, nor longer books, can hope to explain how difficult it is to achieve the required pioneer / vintage era seven part fire control solution which video games only trivialise. It is only by seeking that complex fire control solution in a flight simulator, and reviewing our in cockpit training video that we can understand (and admire) the required skill, and grasp how far short of the required skill we currently are. We can of course just use the pause key at any time as the 'trigger' in order to evaluate IAS, pitch, reticle alignment, roll and slip applied, before we unpause again.

In practice our pilot errors during the attack pattern and high angle dive may cause us to switch to a secondary target, (a different truck or tank), for which we have almost achieved a valid fire control solution. Attacking 'any target' is easier than attacking the 'primary target' and neither has a significant probability of being *destroyed* by strafing even though a threat will be suppressed and a target may be damaged by strafing.

However the primary reason for training ground attack pilots to aim their guns before they fire them is not conservation of gun ammo to prolong combat persistence. The primary reason is that what pilots have never learned to do with guns, they cannot hope to achieve with bombs!

BOMB RETICLE CUE HARMONISATION.

Within the San Giorgio Type B HUD each weapon system has different reticle harmonisation cues at identical range and each has different reticle harmonisation cues at different ranges. We must (train to) recognise and apply them all. Bombs have different ballistics (aerodynamics) to bullets, but (after mid 1941) we must (train to) recognise and impose the harmonised parallax compliance cue for external bombs too. This is actually simpler since at most slant ranges the bomb can only fall short and there is no harmonisation cue for most ranges because there is only an open fire doctrine for external bombs at 'very short range'.

Bombs have no 'muzzle' velocity. Their initial velocity is only aircraft velocity. The higher the aircraft velocity the greater the stand off range at which we can obtain a reticle bomb harmonisation cue. Descending the minus 30 degree glideslope we must, at an absolute minimum, achieve a speed which brings the (missing modern era) CCIP cue inside the HUD. In the vintage era we do not have an on board computer to continuously compute impact point (CCIP). We must instead (train to) 'harmonise' our attack to the invariant external bomb impact parallax cue. The bomb impact cue is where the 'gun cross' intersects the 'bomb circle' at the bottom of the bomb circle. The radius of the circle is carefully designed accordingly. The external bomb impact point is 'just' inside our HUD when we achieve the compliant six part fire control solution.

The centre of aim of the cone of dispersion of the external bombs is overlaid by the lowest point of the 'bomb circle' *only if we achieve the six part fire control solution* for which our armourer tilted the mirror in compliance with command chain doctrine which is based on the ballistics of the bombs in our supply chain (in this campaign).

Worst of all we must release the bombs at compliant range!

Not surprisingly when the command chain ordered precision bombing attacks they required the bombs to be released with minimum cone of dispersion. A pontoon bridge or a company HQ dugout are small targets and a tank is smaller still. Not surprisingly the C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW HUD reticle bomb circle was harmonised for external bomb release at MDH = 200M.

We have discovered the last of the parameters of the six part FIRE CONTROL SOLUTION for unguided bombs.

1) More than 400 KmIAS

2) Minus 30 degree glideslope applied as almost minus 35 pitch

3) Range = 400M (measured using height = 200M QFE)

4) Lower conjunction of gun cross and bomb ring overlaid on hard target.

5) zero roll

6) zero slip

More to the point after reading this a few times, and practising it many, many, many times in a flight simulator, you will understand why real fire control solutions are multi part, very precise, and take time to acquire, and must therefore be preceded by an attack plan which always crosses an IP and DP at substantial height above the target followed by a prolonged and sustained dive along a precise glideslope, and is not the childish make it up as you go along event practised in video games.

At less than 400 KmIAS there is no fire control solution for external bombs because the impact point is below the HUD even when we reach MDH. The C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW require extreme levels of skill to achieve precision bombing, but developing high levels of skill is what makes flight simulation interesting! There is always one more precise flying skill to learn.

While real student pilots learn to fly a compliant circuit pattern and compliant approaches the instructor or examiner can test pattern and approach flying skills even if every approach ends in a planned go around at a specified MDH. During flight simulation an 'in cockpit video' reveals all of our pilot errors. When the student moves on from circuit pattern training to attack pattern training, the attack pattern will always terminate in a 'go around' at MDH. The real student may launch a tiny practice bomb at MDH, and which has the same ballistics as a full size bomb, and its impact range and azimuth error may be measured by the range master, but to understand *why* we missed the target, (the extent and nature of our pilot errors), we need to review the in cockpit video.

In particular we need to pause our video at the moment of weapon release (or firing). Then we can review how compliant each of the six targeting parameters was, (as well as Minimum Descent Height (MDH) compliance). It is more important and useful to know exactly which pilot errors caused the bomb to miss than to know the miss distance. We can pause 'live' or we can create a video with an installed 'MSFS recorder' to review and score (many parts of) our training sortie after landing.

In the illustration above we have arrived at MDH = 200M and our range from the drifter is 400M provided we are compliantly descending a minus 30 degree glideslope. The centre of the cone of dispersion of our 12.7mm machine guns is the bridge roof above the 600M harmonised inner gun circle. This is where we must cease fire with machine guns, but it is where we must open fire with under wing bombs. Provided we have achieved more than 400 KmIAS the launch speed of the bombs will be sufficient to impact the water line of the drifter. Having reached a profile drag in excess of 400 KmIAS descending a minus 30 degree glideslope at about minus 35 pitch we can finally aim our bombs with the lower edge of the large bomb circle, but until we are at 200M QFE on the 30 degree glideslope and in excess of 400 KmIAS the bombs always fall short and impact out of sight under the nose. The impact point of under wing bombs is only inside our HUD when we are less than 500M from the target , below 250M QFE on the minus 30 degree glideslope, and have also achieved a (weapon launch) velocity in excess of 400 Kph. Our aeroplane's flight path vector (glideslope) is proceeding to an impact point beyond (above) the impact point of our bullets and further above the impact point of our bombs. We are accelerating along the minus 30 degree glideslope, but our bullets and bombs both fall away from it with different ballistic trajectories relating to their differently decaying velocity relating to their different co-efficients of profile drag..

As we release the bombs now! We must pull the nose up to a slightly negative pitch and we must roll hard to achieve a 4.5 G pull off the target else we will be hit by fragments from our own (necessarily tiny jagdbomber) exploding bombs. In 'theory' we will avoid the expanding blast and debris field and it is safe to release a pair of contact fused 100Kg bombs now provided our blast evasion manoeuvre and judgement is perfect. In practice most C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW pilots were reluctant to deploy bombs bigger than 50Kg on the under wing pylons and the Luftwaffe therefore developed twin 50Kg mounts for the C.R.42LW .

In the picture above we have only just achieved an under wing bomb fire control solution and we are at both under wing bomb open fire range and all attack doctrine cease fire and evade range, having reached MDH on a minus 30 degree glideslope. If we fly the attack at a different (lower) ZOOM factor in a flight simulator everything will look smaller, and LOD will be reduced, but provided we only ever use a pure 3D scenery projection mode (provided we only ever use VC mode) then scenery projection, placement, perspective and parallax will all be compliant at every ZOOM factor. They are all always broken at any ZOOM factor other than 1.0 when we employ a '2D panel' and most '2D panels' have entirely bogus eyepoints and SIZE_Y which then cause random parallax and perspective at every ZOOM factor. '2D panels' are only compatible with entertainment products or IFR simulation in which we reject all the bogus head up 2D cues while relying solely on gauges whose data will be correct even though the 2D scenery placement is false.

Make sure you understand that range (400M) in the attack above is measured with the altimeter (2 x 200M QFE) not the HUD reticle. We determine our open fire range and our cease fire range with the altimeter. Having determined our slant = bullet path range with the altimeter, (after setting it to target QFE with the Kohlsmann knob), we achieve parallax compliance with the correct component of the HUD for the weapon system we armed (the system of interest = SOI). The above is a valid precision bombing fire control solution against the drifter, from the minus 30 degree glideslope, provided IAS exceeds 400 KmIAS .

Before ever attempting to deliver bombs real pilots must first learn how to obtain a fire control solution for guns. In any variety of C.R.42 a 12.7mm fire control solution exists from 750M QFE all the way to 200M QFE as we travel from 1500M slant (bullet path) range to 400M slant range (above) on the minus 30 degree glideslope.

While strafing we adjust our point of aim to allow for the fixed gun harmonisation range (= 600M applied by our armourer) within our Italian San Giorgio Type B HUD. As we descend the minus 30 degree glideslope our profile drag (IAS) increases, our angle of attack reduces and our negative pitch increases significantly as we maintain the minus 30 degree glideslope. This aids our gun fire control solution. It tends to self correct as the aeroplane pitches down as IAS rises on the compliant glideslope. When we begin training we will fail to achieve a gun fire control solution by 750M QFE, having started from 1000M QFE and we must terminate the gun attack long before 200M QFE due to our poor target evasion and egress skills. If we achieve a fire control solution at all we will manage to sustain it only briefly. We must slowly increase our skill to achieve gun fire control solutions quickly while achieving and descending the minus 30 degree glideslope. Then we must slowly increase our skill to sustain the valid fire control solution descending the minus 30 degree glideslope so that we can continue the gun attack to lower and lower heights on the minus 30 degree glideslope, by varying parallax compliance all the way from 750M QFE to 200M QFE (1500M range to 400M range).

To sustain point of gun aim (the bridge windows) our parallax compliance for that weapon system varies with range. We measure target range with the altimeter and we achieve the varying necessary parallax compliance using the fixed HUD reticle. Here we have just reached 750M QFE on the minus 30 degree glideslope and our slant = hypotenuse = bullet path range is 1500M and we can 'open fire' for suppressive effect with 12.7mm machine guns or cannon. The rounds will now actually reach the target. The centre of their cone of dispersion is the rear bridge window in the gap between the narrow and wide gun cross components of our reticle.

The cone of dispersion of our 12.7mm rounds passes (falls) through the inner gun circle when only 600M slant range and continues to fall along a ballistic curve to have a cone of dispersion centred on the 1500M harmonisation cue. Their muzzle velocity is several times aeroplane velocity and so IAS has little bearing on even maximum engagement range gun harmonisation cues. Any 7.7mm rounds from a 7.7mm Breda gun in an early series Falco have lower muzzle velocity and impact even closer to us. The centre of their cone of dispersion is around the deck line of the drifter. Any bombs released (now) 1500M short of the target at 750M QFE will impact hundreds of metres short and on scenery obscured by our nose and far below our HUD.

We cannot even contemplate high angle bomb delivery training until we have completed our air to ground gunnery training. We must build slowly towards the skill of flying a minus 30 degree glideslope, all the way to 200M QFE during strafing attacks, because the moment at which we must cease fire with guns is the moment at which we must open fire with under wing bombs and is also MDH. Our personal MDH will be much higher than is compatible with precision bomb delivery for a long time during self training. It takes a long time to learn how to use the altimeter to measure range, while using the HUD to measure parallax compliance, to achieve the necessary open fire and cease fire doctrines for different weapon systems.

Animated crashes are not a requirement for circuit pattern or approach training and animated impact explosions are *not* a requirement for weapon skills training.

Animated explosions teach nothing. Weapon skills training requires;

1) a 'realistic' hard coded weather model

2) an aeroplane with 'realistic' flight dynamics

3) a 'realistic' 3D virtual cockpit and MDL with real and multiple parallax compliance cues which work at any simulation zoom factor

4) a simulation window configured by each consumer to match their hardware so that it displays all the gauges of reference

So, what we need to know next is how on earth we are supposed to measure and impose almost minus 35 pitch in a Fiat C.R.42AS or C.R.42LW.

ARTIFICIAL HORIZON – only present in some late production C.R.42s.

In aircraft designed from the outset for precision attacks with unguided weapons, the four different gauges we use to monitor our targeting parameters are grouped closely together, and later still in aviation history all the targeting data will appear in the HUDWAS. The Falco cockpit layout was badly designed for ground attack The altimeter and the artificial horizon are at the bottom of the panel, far below the vintage era. HUDWAS.

Any AH, fitted in any aeroplane which is capable of precision attacks with unguided weapons, must incorporate either a 'pitch ladder' or a singular 'pitch bar' which is brought into alignment with the 'roll cue'. In the C.R.42AS, and C.R.42LW when the pitch bar just touches, (but does not overlap), the 'roll cue' (see above) our negative pitch reaches the compliant minus 35 degrees. In the jpg above pitch is just less than 35 degrees and glideslope is therefore just less than 30 degrees because the pitch bar is not quite in contact with the roll cue at the top of the AH (since we have zero roll). As in real life the VSI and ASI needles may become pegged and off scale. We range find with our altimeter and we fly the glideslope with the artificial horizon remembering that pitch is up to five degrees below glideslope at high IAS, (but ten degrees above glideslope at Vref = 150 KmIAS on approach).

Remember pitch is not the same thing as glideslope. On any constant glideslope (including zero) our pitch diminishes greatly as our profile drag (IAS) increases. We are flying a minus 30 degree glideslope only if the pitch bar just touches the roll cue while our profile drag (IAS) is above 400 KmIAS. Make sure you can identify the two objects within the artificial horizon which must be brought just into contact, without overlay, (at any roll angle), to achieve high angle combat doctrine target pitch in the picture above.

Notice that we can measure and sustain target pitch at any angle of roll as we 'line up' the target with aileron, but at the moment of external bomb release we should achieve zero roll applied, zero slip applied, with pitch bar to roll cue just touching, with IAS exceeding 400 KmIAS, and the aiming reticle for external bombs (base of large bomb ring) in 3D parallax compliance with the target from the default eyepoint. The real pilot places his head against the provided parallax compliance headrest to achieve that default compliance. Inside MSFS the developer encodes the eyepoint which delivers the necessary parallax compliance and we impose that eyepoint with the spacebar.

If this makes us wonder how on earth real vintage era ground attack pilots ever managed to hit a target by 'precision bombing', we must remember that they almost always didn't. Nevertheless the most interesting thing we can do with a late production, bomb pylon equipped, Falco in a flight simulator is learn (attempt) the complex skills of high angle precision bombing. That would also be true if we were simulating operation of a Fairey Battle or any other vintage era tactical day bomber with high angle precision bombing (air assault) capability and role, but before we can learn the relevant skills in a flight simulator we need both a very carefully designed 3D simulation control interface and 'realistic' flight dynamics which first impose the problems and then allow us to solve them using the compliant doctrines.

Remember when we fly a Falco or an Egeo we have no artificial horizon. We must then achieve high angle strafing compliance and range-finding solely by achieving the complaint IP and DP which place us on the minus 30 degree glideslope to the target as we dive from the DP. We do the same in an C.R.42AS or LW, but after we dive we have an AH in those later models to refine our glideslope to provide superior glideslope measurement and by that means superior range-finding. The supplied history cites many different targets that were strafed and bombed using different varieties of Falco 1940 - 1945 and where each real mission started from.

Every compliant ground attack proceeds from 750M on the minus 30 degree glideslope to 200M on the minus 30 degree glideslope as depicted above and they bracket the Breda 12.7mm cannon open fire and cease fire doctrine. All other glideslopes reduce time of enduring 12.7mm fire control solution or make range impossible to measure, which makes aiming before firing impossible. Note the proximity of the target at cannon cease fire and bomb open fire doctrine in the jpg above. The Luftwaffe considered this far too close for use of contact fused 100Kg bombs and so they developed twin 50Kg carriers for the C.R.42LW.

EXTERNAL PYLON WEAPON RELEASING.

Only some late production C.R.42 variants have bomb pylons. Loading, arming and releasing of bombs was described in the 'cockpit drills' section at the top of his tutorial . The external bomb release handle is is always connected to, and will always release both arming propellers of both detonators, and drop all bombs from both pylons, (if loaded). The tail propellers will *not* have time to arm the bomb if it is in flight for less than 400M at less than 400 KmIAS! Arming depends on adequate IAS and time of flight to turn the bomb propeller through the required number of revolutions to release the firing pin of the contact detonator.

Failure to comply with high angle doctrine will therefore just create yet another unexploded bomb whose detonator will never arm and whose firing pin will never fire. Europe and North Africa were littered with them by 1945. Throughout WW2 50Kg and 100Kg bombs released too late, or with inadequate IAS, by many types of Axis aircraft, frequently passed right through unarmoured Allied ships without exploding. This is just another realism factor that children playing video games ignore. It was also lost on the real Argentine Navy when attacking the Royal Navy in the much later Falklands / Malvinas war. Doctrinal compliance skills matter, and excess bravery is not a substitute. Iron bombs are dumb simple technology rendered useless if deployed using faulty doctrine. Video game cheat modes don't work in real life.

Pressing home attacks below MDH not only risks the aeroplane and crew, it prevents the bomb from exploding on target by failure to allow time for arming prior to impact. Attacking down a glideslope of inadequate angle not only risks the aeroplane and crew, it prevents the bomb from exploding on target by causing ricochet.

If the aeroplane (MDL) has no external bomb racks the external bomb release will never have been fitted either so it won't be present in that MDL (VC).

WEATHER RELATED SKILLS.

At all times (outside the cruise phase) we must control IAS very precisely. We fly the crosswind leg of the attack pattern with much less than cruise boost, but with combat RPM already applied. We need time to locate, identify and evaluate targets. In the C.R.42AS and C.R.42LW the optimum height to cross the IP is 1000M QFE and the compliant IAS to cross the IP is only 220 KmIAS; exactly the same IAS as we turn final in the circuit pattern to land and which we use to patrol. In any other type of C.R.42 we can only strafe and IAS is such a small fraction of muzzle velocity that there is no particular IAS restriction at the IP and DP. It is however best practice to repeat, repeat, repeat, skills until we are really good at them and so we aim to cross the IP and DP of the high angle attack pattern at 220 KmIAS even when the attack is only a suppressive strafing attack.

If we initiate the dive at more than 220 KmIAS we have increasingly little time to achieve our six part fire control solution and our fixed mirror tilt is false. When we reach open fire and cease fire doctrine. Enemy AAA envelope issues aside if we start our attack from lower than 1000M we have increasingly little time to achieve the necessary six part fire control solution.

However it is essential to grasp that parallax compliance works at any, and every, height. Parallax compliance is glideslope compliance. Always intercepting a 30 degree glideslope in the real world means that our range is always double our height anywhere we intercept that glideslope. If we fly our attack pattern at a height of 750M instead of 1000M, using the same head up IP canopy compliance cue, then the IP is both one quarter lower and one quarter closer to the target.

Now don't miss the point! These tutorials explain over and over again that everything in aviation relates to TIME. Real pilots do *not* confuse themselves with complex speed and distance calculation nonsense during combat. There is no need to calculate where the dive point (still on the minus 30 degree glideslope) is as a distance, or how long it will take to get there from this new IP using speed and distance calculations. The IP is a parallax picture with no units at every distance and at every height.

There is nothing random about minus 30 degree high angle attack doctrine. The doctrine is clever because it makes 4D navigation compliance simple. Compliance may require new knowledge and skills, but the whole point of high angle dive attack doctrine is to deliver very simple to calculate head up VFR 4D pilotage to mere pilots. Range = 2 x Height is a sum even fighter pilots can solve.

Note that planning and flying the attack pattern at three quarters of the height and stand off range is *not* in any sense 'better' or a goal we should pursue. If the visibility and cloud base allow us to positively identify the primary target from a 1000M attack pattern we should. Until we have acquired superior fire control solution acquisition skills we cannot even contemplate an attack from less than 1000M AGL. We must abort the mission before we even take off if weather in the target area does not allow *our personal skill level* to succeed in obtaining a fire control solution from below the target area cloud base or in the target area (low level haze) visibility. It follows that we need FSMETAR or similar software to obtain a weather briefing for the target area. It is not the aeroplane that prevents use of an attack pattern below 1000M AGL it is our lack of skill to obtain fire control solutions quickly enough!

Think back to the time we extended down wind and the height at which we intercepted the FAT to our landing runway during type conversion training. That is not an aeroplane requirement. It is a lack of personal skill requirement. We must test our skill frequently else we do not know how much time we need to achieve our operating targets.

There is no point attempting the mission if the target area cloud base and visibility preclude compliance at our current level of skill!

The skills we use to locate the IP and DP are *no different* when they are at a different location on the same glideslope. Only the altitude and range on the same glideslope vary, never the parallax compliance or the skills required. It makes no difference whether the compliant glideslope ends at our landing runway or an enemy ship / tank / dugout. The height at which we can intercept the differently compliant glideslope is a function of our current skill to achieve targeting parameters quickly and precisely , not the aeroplane we are flying today. Our skill, not the aeroplane, limits the weather we can achieve 4D navigational compliance within.

This simulation package contains the C.R.42AS used by the Regia Aeronautica to make high angle attacks on moonlit nights and the C.R.42LW which was originally also procured by the Luftwaffe for that purpose, but rarely used that way (see history). Earlier varieties of C.R.42 had been used for high angle night strafing. Darkness limits visibility of targets. When we are flying night strike we may need to plan our attack pattern at lower levels and even so just like the real pilots we will struggle to identify and high angle attack unlit targets. We must spend many hours learning daylight high angle attack skills before we attempt night strikes by moonlight and we must be sure to set a date which has sufficient moonlight and a date with almost no cloud to obscure that vital moonlight. There is no separate tutorial for night attacks. They are just the most difficult case of the same doctrine. Remember this very primitive aeroplane never has landing lights and we will need to approach and land by moonlight too. These are much more complex and difficult skills than flying a modern airliner and they had a very high accident rate in real life.

MAXIMUM IP HEIGHT.

Minimum height for crossing an IP is driven by threat envelopes and our skill to obtain multi part fire control solutions quickly. However maximum height for crossing an IP is a function of our old friend CEASE FIRE DOCTRINE.

We must engage defensive no later than;

1) our Minimum Descent Height *or*

2) When our dive reaches a profile drag just short of structural failure at Vne *or*

3) Before the controls become so heavy that we cannot manoeuvre well enough to either aim or take evasive action.

The maximum height at which we can cross the IP is always driven by aircraft specific constraints.....…....if any exist.

If we intercept the Final Approach Track to the target with excess height, (even exactly on the minus 30 glideslope), profile drag abuse (IAS) will quickly increase far beyond 400 KmIAS. Earlier I encouraged you to determine the maximum IAS compatible with having the muscular strength to sustain a minus 30 degree glideslope as the tornado of drag on the elevators rises from F5 to F6 on the Fujita scale!

Eventually we will be unable to bench press the stick forward to impose almost minus 35 pitch to sustain the required minus 30 degree glideslope even though the Falco has no Vne, (or Mne).

This makes attack planning more difficult and precise than circuit planning. During circuit pattern training we can intercept the complaint glideslope at any height, (and equivalent range from touchdown). On approach to land we can give ourselves *more than enough* time to stabilise on the compliant glideslope. We fly that compliant glideslope at constant IAS = Vref = 150 KmIAS.

However when we need to intercept and sustain a minus 30 degree glideslope in an aeroplane with no dive brakes we have a limited range of heights (and 2 times = range) which are consistent with not reaching an IAS which will prevent us from deflecting the elevators to hold nearly minus 35 pitch. Significant excess height = range will not allow us to retain control for long enough to minimise our cone of dispersion. We will reach and exceed loss of control IAS before we are low enough and close enough to 'open fire'.

Aeroplanes which accelerate slowly down a minus 30 degree glideslope require less skill in attack pattern planning, because they allow longer to obtain the valid six part fire control solution from any initial height, and the gap between minimum and maximum IP height is much greater. The C.R.42 was popular as a ground attack aeroplane not because it had significant combat utility in that role, but because it allowed the attack pattern to be flown at greater stand off range at greater height outside larger calibre AAA envelopes.....if the cloud base and visibility permitted. Remember the parallax compliance cues do not alter. They really measure (and potentially impose) constancy of glideslope not constancy of range. We measure range by fixing our height (not altitude) and then we can use glideslope to measure range whether the parallax cue we are using right now is 9 : 1 baseline range in a circuit pattern or 2 : 1 slant range in a high angle attack.

During the high angle dive poor streamlining (high CDp) is an advantage to pilots who struggle to obtain fire control solutions quickly and allows good pilots to begin attacks from lower heights. If the target area has a low cloud base or poor visibility then we would like to be flying a horribly unstreamlined biplane, instead of a streamlined Ba 65. A jagdbomber or schlachtkampf with very poor streamlining, allows us to make huge errors in attack planning and IP execution compared to a Ba 65 because they allow us a very wide range of IP heights and longer to obtain the complex multi part fire control solution if the weather allows us to fly the attack pattern at greater height, but there is a maximum height for crossing the IP at 220 KmIAS because eventually every aeroplane that lacks dive brakes (to keep profile drag = IAS very low when extended) will reach an IAS = profile drag that causes loss of precise pitch control . Many Ba 65 pilots longed to be flying the much less streamlined Fiat C.R.42 but for two years it could not deliver bombs at all, and when after mid 1941 some acquired bomb racks they could only deliver those bombs over a tiny combat radius. Many important British supply targets could not be attacked by the C.R.42AS.

For use at night the C.R.42LW was quickly replaced by the Ju 87D, (see history), not because the Ju 87D could carry a bigger bomb load, but because the Ju 87D had dive brakes to achieve huge CDp and therefore accelerated even more slowly down the minus 30 degree glideslope at night. Starting its dive at lower KmIAS, from a height constrained by night visibility, with much higher co-efficient of profile drag the Ju 87D pilot actually had enough time to acquire a valid fire control solution. Remember though attacking from 400M slant range a Ju 87D was also limited to using 50Kg under wing bombs and was also only a light night nuisance raider relegated to that role after the Luftwaffe had surrendered air supremacy to the allies by day over Italy .

The Falco was designed without external bombs, and without precision bombing capability, but it was always designed to be compatible with high angle attack doctrine, because it had always been designed to strafe enemy vehicles at enemy supply choke points and aircraft on enemy airfields. When all more suitable aircraft had been shot down by early spring 1941 the early series C.R.42s of the Regia Aeronautica were suddenly relegated to serve in tactical bomber wings despite having no bombs. The pilots could then improve their high angle attack skills pending delivery of the C.R.42AS which had two bomb racks. It was important that those C.R.42 pilots flew many strafing attacks down to 400M slant range terminating at around 425 KmIAS so that they had developed the proficiency they would need to deliver bombs when tactical bomber versions of the C.R.42, that actually had bomb racks, arrived from mid summer 1941 (see history).

By the time that the C.R.42AS arrived Falco pilots in North Africa, and Egeo pilots in the Dodecanese Islands, were already skilled in attacking soft targets using high angle minus 30 degree strafing doctrine. When external bomb racks were available several months later all that the real C.R.42 pilots had to do was acquire the skill of releasing external bombs at a height of almost 200M, when almost 400m short of the target, and just a moment before engaging defensive, having achieved a profile drag between 400 and 450 KmIAS. They had no new skills to learn and they could score bomb hits inside the berms of the British artillery gun line and sometimes even on individual tanks during CAS sorties. They flew the same precise minus 30 degree glideslope, reaching about minus 35 pitch, from the *same* IP after the *same* attack pattern in order to comply with high angle precision bombing doctrine of hard targets with external bombs as should be used to strafe soft targets. Emergency anti tank missions became possible for the first time and gave the C.R.42AS much greater potential in the schlachtkampf = CAS = sturmovik role which it had not been designed to perform.

BIPLANE VERSUS MONOPLANE.

There were perfectly good reasons why fighter pilots were unwilling to give up high co-efficient of drag biplanes for streamlined monoplanes. The issues are usually completely misidentified in relevant books and even in contemporary intelligence analyses since the authors of both are often childishly obsessed with air to air combat. Real fighter pilots understood perfectly well that today's jaeger is likely to become tomorrow's jagdbomber.

Monoplanes require much more precise IAS targeting skills, because they take less time, or a smaller mistake, to enter first the regime of excess IAS with poor control authority, and in some soon after fatal IAS as the tail rips off just after Vne. Poorly streamlined fixed gear biplanes proceeded more slowly to high IAS on the same glideslope. They never suffered from transonic shock or other transonic effects. They could have large control surfaces with good control authority at both high and low IAS. IAS targeting skills did not need to be as precise in biplanes. IAS went out of control more slowly and control authority deteriorated more slowly. This also made biplanes harder to crash during low level aerobatics! An aft seating position significantly increases chance of survival after a crash due to the large crumple zone ahead. Real pilots place a very high value on survival probability.

The primary disadvantage of the biplane is the blocking of eyelines. The further aft the cockpit the worse the situation becomes. Use of pure 3D simulation helps us to understand that liability.

HIGH ANGLE ATTACK – the on screen handling notes.

During our approach to the IP we reduce boost to reduce our profile drag to cross the IP at 220 KmIAS at a height of 1000M QFE and just before we begin our dive soon afterwards we close the throttle fully. The elevators of the Falco are responsive throughout the relevant IAS range and we do not wish to augment authority with propwash. We wish to have nicely harmonised elevators and ailerons with propwash over neither as we dive on the target. We intend to acquire a fire control solution for 12.7mm by the time we reach 750M QFE having started from 1000M QFE while establishing the minus 30 degree glideslope and we wish to proceed at modest velocity while we line up the target, whether we intend to strafe it or bomb it.

We preselect 2400 GIRI before we enter the attack pattern because it is optimal for egress and we will be far too busy to mess with RPM as we egress.

We have finally reached the point where we can examine how the High Angle Attack Phase operating requirements are abbreviated within the Falco on screen handling notes. They and the egress phase handling notes are appended to the non combat handling notes. Their content discloses hat we may have a lot of new skills to learn and practice,practice, practice. Make sure you can associate the brief reminders below with the skills to be acquired and described at length above.

*************************************

High Angle Attack :

Target area = Identify

GIRI = 2400

C (throttle) = Reduce

KmIAS = Reduce

Height = 1000M QFE

Convergence = 90 degrees

External Bombs = ARM

reticle = Base of bomb circle

Identify egress vector and landmark

Identify AAA threats

Identify primary target

Use parallax compliance to achieve IP

Cross IP = 220 KmIAS

Turn = 90 degrees to attack vector

Height = 1000M QFE throughout

ACHIEVE = Final Approach Track

THROTTLE = CLOSED

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

DIVE = PITCH BAR TO ROLL CUE (-35 pitch)

HUD = achieve target parallax compliance

SLIP BALL = CENTRE

ROLL CUE = CENTRE

KmIAS > 400

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

BOMBS = RELEASE (P key)

WHILE paused review fire control compliance

Unpause (P key) then (/ key) to remove bomb drag

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

IF no valid fire control solution by 300M AGL OR

JETTISON EXTERNAL BOMBS (/ key)

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

*******************************

If we have achieved all parts of the fire control solution other than release height we descend below 300M to MDH at 200M, but if the other five components of the fire control solution have not been achieved by 300M we just dump the bombs into the general target area and begin egress from 300M QFE while still 600M slant range from the target.

We have examined how to vary stand off range in the attack pattern using stand off height. We do not 'wish' to vary stand off height because 1000M at the top of the dive delivers 400 - 450 KmIAS after an appropriate time interval diving from 1000M and just above MDH. We *cannot* make a high angle attack from much above 1000M QFE because even with the most inefficient traction (engine braking) available, and external bombs present, profile drag = IAS would increase to unmeasured values before we reach 400M slant range from the target.

If we have superior skill we can attack from less than 1000M vertical stand off, even though we never want to, unless weather imposes that requirement. When we do, we may need a little boost (C) late in the roughly 35 degree pitch dive down the minus 30 degree glideslope to bring IAS above 400 KmIAS to deliver the valid fire control solution for unguided weapons, because we never continue the dive below MDH = 200M QFE = 400M slant range from target.,

EGRESS.

High thrust in an attack dive gives us less time to obtain the fire control solutions we need. We can strafe the primary threat at any IAS, but our fire control solution for our external bombs versus the primary target requires => 400 KmIAS at weapon launch else they fall short whether we 'aim' perfectly or not.

However immediately after weapon release, as we engage defensive, we want to increase thrust even though we need to reduce IAS, since high thrust delivers maximum attainable turn rate. During early egress we do wish to augment airflow over the tailplane to increase its negative lift. When we engage *offensive* against a ground target we need to *restrain* profile drag (IAS). When we engage *defensive* we need to *restrain* IAS to prevent GLOC at full up elevator with high propwash augmentation. We engage offensive against ground targets with the throttle firmly closed, but after reduction to target IAS we engage defensive with the maximum authorised pressione. If we are under fire we 'may' choose to invoke WEP briefly. Otherwise we advance throttle only to <= 0.86C since all ground targets are far below Fiat A.74 rated altitude and in this pioneer era aeroplane we have no automated overboost protection.

Before reading on you should now proceed to very high altitude and evaluate, note and remember, the IAS abuse which prevents us from sustaining a minus 30 degree glideslope at about minus 35 degrees pitch and therefore prevents a fire control solution; and you should evaluate the lower IAS which delivers 4.5G with the stick full aft.

We must arrest the high angle dive and bring the nose 'up' to achieve that target IAS as we engage defensive from a high angle dive. We must *not* pull the stick full aft until our profile drag (IAS) has reduced to the value that delivers 4.5G with the stick full aft. The corner speed of the aeroplane is of no consequence at all. What matters is *our* corner speed which is the IAS associated with *our* G limit (GLOC). If we ever pull the elevators full up while our profile drag (IAS) is higher we will induce GLOC and at low level that will be fatal. You have been warned!

Immediately after weapon release we pitch the nose up to achieve the compliant IAS to instead engage defensive at 4.5G with the stick full aft and *then* we move the throttle, either full open for WEP if under fire, else cautiously to <= 0.86C. We selected combat GIRI before our base leg in the attack pattern.

If seeking terrain masking is impossible, or beyond our current skill level, we must instead climb above 1000M QFE at 200 KmIAS. In a 'fast jet' we would have enough kinetic energy and thrust to zoom climb back to 1000M from a high angle dive to much higher IAS. In a Falco climb to even 1000M QFE from 200M QFE is slower and if at all possible we should seek terrain masking while we egress from the target area and only climb (at Vy) when (at least 30 seconds) clear of the target area.

At night if we have not been coned by searchlights we pitch the nose higher and climb away at 200 KmIAS at 1.0 G. If we are coned we must consider low level evasion, but it is very risky.

2400 GIRI is highly efficient at the IAS associated with engaging defensive *in full throttle*, and at the lower IAS associated with egress *in full throttle*, but very *inefficient* when diving to high IAS *with the throttle closed*. The boost we apply and the high RPM we demand during a high angle attack must deliver zero net thrust at modest IAS with the screw in positive pitch and the throttle closed. As IAS increases further under the pull of gravity, the screw must deliver negative net thrust (but not reverse thrust) to further retard our acceleration.

Children playing video games often fail to control RPM at all and many / most flight simulation enthusiasts fail to control RPM compliantly.

Whenever we fly any aeroplane with a constant speed screw we must (train to) use RPM (GIRI) levers to vary traction from highly efficient to highly inefficient, just like using a manual shift gear box in a car to vary traction efficiency (engine braking) independently from fuel flow as vehicle velocity varies.

No powerful piston engined aeroplane has 'automatic shift'. They are all 'manual shift'. We must demand the RPM which maximises either thrust efficiency, or thrust inefficiency, depending on our current (or next) profile drag (IAS) target. During a high angle dive attack, descending a minus 30 degree hillside, with no brakes, we must demand high RPM, and close the throttle, to achieve engine braking, whether in an aeroplane or a terrestrial vehicle.

Many flight simulation enthusiasts just pretend forever that piston engined aeroplanes have automatic shift, and therefore never (train to) demand the compliant RPM for their current IAS target, often because they also pretend forever that phases of flight exist in which they have no specific profile drag (IAS) target. In reality every phase of flight (except cruise) has a specific IAS target, a correct matching RPM demanded with the manual shift lever, and may also have critical IAS limits which sometimes cannot be avoided having failed to demand the compliant RPM. That manual (RPM) shift lever is there for a reason!

 *******************************

Egress phase:

ABOVE 200M QFE

ENGAGE = DEFENSIVE

ROLL < 90

PITCH TO SUSTAIN 4.5G

KmIAS TO SUSTAIN 4.5G

THROTTLE = 0.86C

JOYSTICK = FULL AFT

TERRAIN COLLISION = AVOID

TERRAIN MASKING = ACHIEVE

ROLL = 0 WHEN EGRESS VECTOR

WAIT = 30 SECONDS

COWL = OPEN

CLIMB = 200 KmIAS

WEAPONS = SAFE

REMOVE BOMB WEIGHT (payload menu)

ON REACHING 7500M QNH RESUME CRUISE

********************************

BOMB DRAG CO-EFFICIENT (Bomb CDp).

The time available to achieve the multi part fire control solution is a function of aircraft variable geometry and external payload status. External bombs and racks increase our total Co-efficient of Profile Drag (CDp). They reduce our streamlining. That increase in CDp diminishes weapon platform climb rate, acceleration, and combat radius, while those external bombs are present. High CDp limits our combat radius which is bad, but once we enter the high angle dive that higher CDp is suddenly very useful. It slows our progress as we dive down the minus 30 degree glideslope reaching almost minus 35 pitch.

Within MSFS *we* must add external bombs both visually and dynamically using the 'spoiler' key (/). We must check visually that they are loaded. If they are not visible, their extra CDp is not present. Failing to load them with the spoiler key allows fake over optimistic performance all the way to the relevant target, and excess combat radius, but more crucially it leaves us without the extra CDp of those external bombs during the high angle dive. Without that extra CDp we accelerate too quickly and we have less time to obtain a valid multi part fire control solution.

If we intend to make precision attacks on hard targets we must load external bombs. Only a few late production varieties of C.R.42 can do so. We can make precision attacks on anything, but the emergency anti tank CAS mission in North Africa *requires* high angle precision bombing. Even with 'precision' high angle bombing the chances of actually hitting a tank are still vanishingly small.

If we have defined a joystick button as a spoiler retract/extend button it becomes the external bomb load / release button when flying a C.R.42 (MDL) with pylons.

After external bomb release we must remove the co-efficient of profile drag (CDp) of the external bombs by 'retracting the MSFS spoiler'.

Within MSFS we must remove the weight of the bombs using the payload menu.

The price of simulation realism is complexity.

No variety of C.R.42 deployed delayed action fragmentation grenades, (or any other type of cluster munition), in combat. The C.R.42 did not make 'lay down' attacks. This greatly restricted its combat utility within Assalto Stormi, even after the C.R.42s they were forced to accept as re-equipment had external pylons for just two bombs from the summer of 1941. The C.R.42 was never assigned medium level area bombing missions by day. Some pilots flying night strike having failed to identify a specific target may have dumped their bombs into a general target area behind enemy lines while still at medium or high level.

REALISM DURING AIR to AIR COMBAT SIMULATION.

The median score of all real fighter pilots who have flown real air to air combat missions is zero!

Of course any video game masquerading as a simulator which replicated that reality would fail to sell. Too few video game consumers have flying and targeting skills superior to real combat pilots. Yet video game consumers expect to obtain 'kills' that the median real fighter pilot has never been able to achieve during an entire career. Just surviving real air combat requires very substantial training and skill. Obtaining a kill during air combat has always required skill levels beyond the ability of most highly trained and very carefully selected humans.

For most fighter pilots the only issue during air to air combat was escape and evasion and the skill to engage defensive at optimum IAS with minimum height loss. Successful evasion depends on individual skill in pitch and consequential IAS targeting, not weapon platform attributes.

2D CHEAT MODES belong in video games.

To simulate operation of any variety of Falco it is essential to turn GLOC ON in the MSFS realism screen and it is essential to fly it using a pure 3D simulation environment. A 2D training environment cannot deliver the necessary parallax compliance cues. In addition the video game cheat mode of losing visual contact with only the head up terrain in the rear window, whilst continuing to have full head down access to the gauges, including the blind flying panel, by using a 2D front window that is always visible, even after GLOC, must be avoided. During simulation if we fly so badly that we pull all the way to GLOC we must lose visual access to head down gauge cues as well as head up parallax cues.

We must (train to) pull to the edge of GLOC, without invoking GLOC, applying the minimum nose down pitch, which yields the IAS required, and minimum height loss per degree of turn. Practice, practice, practice.

NAVIGATION CHEAT MODES belong in video games.

Until late 1941 no Falco had wireless navigation (W/T) of any kind. Note the complete absence of aerials. That imposed pioneer era navigation techniques (the requirement to achieve pilotage) on its pilot, even in the vintage era of aviation history. Pretending that it had either vintage era, or classic era, avionics is pointless. Use the Falco to learn the skills of pilotage explained above. Use Plan-G in free mode, not as a cheat mode.

Plan-G provides the opportunity to have a flight plan track overlaid on 'Google Maps' and provides MSFS users with a relevant map of almost anywhere on planet earth for VFR planning and execution (with modern airspace reservations for those who want them). There is less and less excuse for using MSFS as a fairground ride and never learning to navigate head up using an on screen 'Google Map'. Ignore the GPS cheat mode and just use Plan-G to plan flights and provide the maps of anywhere with Plan-G in 'free' mode running in a window behind MSFS which you can click to give focus when you go head down to look at the map, (if you have no second monitor).

If you have never acquired the skills of pioneer era navigation (pilotage) then use the relevant tutorial to do so,

......see 2008 Propliner Tutorial from www.calclassic.com/tutorials

Pilots are not super human. The real Falco pilots could not cope with pilotage in anything other than Mediterranean summer weather or clear blue desert conditions, but many MSFS users make pilotage difficult by never climbing to realistic en route altitudes. We can see a long way when we cruise below cloud at FL250 and 7500M is the normal WW2 cruising altitude of the C.R.42. It is not basic trainer plodding around at low velocity trapped in thick air and the haze layer at low level. As the supplied history explains from FL250 C.R.42 pilots could often see their target, or the target of the bombers for which they were top cover, from top of climb.

The trick is to plan and fly only sorties over a combat radius we have the skill to fly, while slowly learning how to operate aeroplanes by visual reference to the surface over longer ranges, instead of always cheating to cover up our lack of skill. If you have never acquired the skills of pilotage (pioneer era navigation) then use the relevant tutorial above. Real amateur student pilots acquire the relevant basic skills in about a further 15 hours of training and are often competent amateur pilots after a further 25. A flight simulator is much more than a random path fairground ride undertaken in different shaped and coloured little model aeroplanes.

We should gradually learn to fly combat missions of greater combat radius by comparing MSFS scenery (and mesh) to a real map (using Plan-G). Real combat missions are not about a few minutes of shooting at things, they are about 4D flight planning and using parallax compliance skills to avoid threat envelopes, out and back, while actually managing to locate, positively identify, and then obtain a valid seven part fire control solution against a pre planned target. Navigating around threat envelopes in 4D, locating the target, despite those necessary diversions, and then relocating our base, flying a compliant circuit to maximise runway capacity, is more than 99% of any combat sortie. Learning to do that without cheating, even when the target is only 100 miles (30 minutes) from our base, is what combat flight simulation is all about.

Try to grasp how easy it can be to navigate from one IP to another without cheating, having climbed to an altitude of 7500M (4 miles), and able to see big landmarks and line features like Lake Habbaniyah, or the Euphrates River, or the entire city area of Baghdad from 50 miles away as we fly fighter sweeps from Kirkuk in our Egeo in the spring of 1941. Following the African coastline from one port to another is not difficult. Island hopping and finding ports in the Dodecanese islands is not difficult and finding RAF Luqa starting from south east Sicily does not require anyone to cheat provided the sortie is flown at a real;istic altitude and not a an altitude appropriate to primary trainers. At 7500M we are above the combat zone haze layer. Trying to navigate by reference to the surface in the haze layer below 4500M (FL150) is just another pilot error!

Do not descend into the haze layer until after ToD for the target or ToD for destination. Real amateur pilots quickly learn to navigate via more than one waypoint, to another and another, suitable distances apart, (which they choose based on their skill), using line features and landmarks, or timed legs, to locate each in turn, over total distances of 150 miles, which is the practical outer limit of Falco combat radius. Navigating 150 miles back again is no harder. Flight simulation enthusiasts can learn to achieve in a virtual training environment what trainee amateur pilots achieve in real life. Cheating or just pretending to fly aeroplanes isn't mandatory, or even necessary.

By all means try to navigate through the mountains of Greece in real downloaded and saved winter weather, (without cheating and without avionics), to understand why that was fatal for real and experienced combat pilots and why real Falco squadron commanders refused to even try on half of all days in that campaign (see history). Think hard about how well suited to the weather of Belgium and Sweden and the the Ukraine the Falco actually was given that experienced Regia Aeronautica pilots could not cope over Greece. The skills of compliance are not super human. The trick is to evaluate our own skill set and operate within it while slowly extending it instead of using video game cheat modes.

COMBAT REALISM.

In reality combat flight simulation is hardly different to any other kind. 99% of any combat mission is carefully compliant 4D navigation during carefully compliant aircraft and engine operation. At best most combat aircrew only ever reached the target, identified the target, attacked the target, missed the target, or on a good day damaged the target, and got back without crashing. Even that required great skill and bravery.

Desktop combat flight simulation will never address the bravery issues, the moral issues, or even the human strength and endurance issues, but it can address the skill issues. It is a shame that so few flight simulation enthusiasts use their flight simulators to learn compliant skills and therefore make no attempt to test and measure their increasing competence in those skills. Real combat flying may be about destroying things, but combat flight simulation is about learning the relevant real world skills needed to achieve compliant operation of the weapon platform and weapon systems, in every phase of the combat sortie.

It is entirely possible to learn 4D compliant navigation by visual reference to the scenery using MSFS and nothing more than tourist maps or Google maps (Plan-G), in ever worse visibility, wind, cloud base, and precipitation, but doing so at night is much harder. However there is always one more challenging skill to learn using MSFS. It is entirely possible to measure time taken to achieve 4.5G from cruise; and the height lost whilst turning through 360 degrees with 4.5 G continuously applied, and slowly improve those skills. It is entirely possible to first learn how to achieve a valid fire control solution (at all) and later to measure time taken (or height lost) to achieve it from initiating the compliant high angle dive.

It is entirely possible to learn all kinds of parallax compliance during head up flight. It is entirely possible to learn to fly compliant circuit patterns to the same standard as real amateur pilots.

At higher levels of skill combat flight simulation cannot take place in a weather free environment and is never about watching things blow up after achieving a ridiculously easy video game fire control solution having spawned over the target, or having used non existent avionics to locate and identify a target in unlimited visibility under a cloud, smoke, ice, and precipitation free sky.

At higher levels of skill combat realism is also about skilful threat avoidance, target location, target identification, and obtaining a valid and sufficiently enduring fire control solution versus multiple cadena attacked targets which are either seeking concealment, or become concealed by circumstance. In the real Falco all of that had to be achieved using the Mk.1 human eyeball, not electronics. No 'combat flight simulator' delivers the generally poor low altitude visibility, or the locally dense and drifting smoke over combat zones, with any realism. Threats and targets are far too easy to locate, identify, and attack. For us as simulation pilots finding stealthy concealment above cloud at medium level and behind drifting smoke at low level is far too hard to achieve.

The best way to simulate those circumstances is with an adequate weather model whose output we can control. MSFS has one. Particularly during schlachtkampf (CAS) sorties we should always invoke low visibility (never better than ten miles) in the target area, augmented by many rain (or snow) showers drifting across the scenery to emulate drifting smoke concealment. Then we can begin to learn and practice relevant doctrinal compliance skills at more than a basic level.

TRAIN IN A LOGICAL SEQUENCE.

Real pilots don't train for complex skills until they have mastered basic skills. Then they transfer those basic skills to a combat environment. It is best to do the same even in a simulator. Learn to achieve compliant 4D pilotage, head up parallax compliance, profile drag targeting, together with compliant operation of aero engines in each phase of each sortie, (as cited in the aircraft specific handling notes), before attempting more difficult combat doctrine compliance.

I have explained the basics of the relevant combat doctrines, and the basic skills required. I have broken them down into small segments of required knowledge and skill, which are easy to search for and 'thread' using key words or phrases, each of which represent a skill which can then be practised, one at a time, in many training sorties, each of which has a defined goal. The acquired skills then need to be 'threaded' together to achieve realism. Use of aircraft with realistic flight dynamics and comprehensive handling notes which explain engine operating targets, the correct sequencing of the profile drag targets, for *each* phase of the flight is essential for everyone who hopes to learn the relevant real world skills.

For those who are unfamiliar with the relevant concepts and combat doctrines behind the abbreviated on screen handling notes, tutorials which explain what constitutes compliance are essential, else flight simulation enthusiasts who have no real world training will never know what they are supposed to use a flight simulator to train themselves to achieve, either in general, or during type conversion to fly an aeroplane type they have never operated before.

Real pilots may have all the knowledge and skills described here, (and more), but may have little knowledge of the historical or regional, (topography versus weather), factors which they need to understand to plan realistic sorties in a Falco. I hope the two supplied tutorials make that goal more achievable by also explaining the real mission profiles, the real geography, and relevant seasonal considerations, with explanations of which airfields to use in FS9 and their modern ATC codes for insertion in the GOTO menu, since for political reasons many places no longer have the name they had in 1939 - 1945. That part of the tutorial is within the supplied history of the Fiat C.R.42 Falco also in the FIAT C.R.42 COMMON FILES folder.

FSAviator - December 2010.