Avilator

An oil/glycol cooler on a WW2-era piston single taildragging fighter of non-American and non-Asian origin.

In the case of the LGB, they maneuver the aircraft such that the target stays within the FOV until impact. This means they are usually banking away, and the pod would not have to look directly aft. If such a geometry were required for any reason, they would probably buddy lase the target.

I like how the pilots look at the Mavs over their shoulders just to watch them come off the rails.:D

Where can we see these?

Nicely done, dude! Not only does it appeal to me as a pilot, but as an engineer as well.:thumbup:

Yes it can, and the Longbow radar can target them all at once.

I wonder if it's hovering in that photo. If so, why suck power to turn the props in a hover?

Of course, IDK what power5 is talking about.:D

All it's missing are the speed brakes.

That engine + DCS module= *droooool*:thumbup:

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

Happens to the best of us, man.

I think he means that each indivudial missile is within a certain range of values around the BS due to the missiles not being perfect.

No problem!:thumbup: I always like to explain these things related to flying airplanes(as you may have gussed:music_whistling:).

LOLZ!!!:megalol::megalol: Well, as much as I can in the computer lab.:music_whistling:

Ha! I didn't even notice that.:D I didn't even need to look at it that long.

Add one more person to the satisfied saitek pedals owners' club. I too, had the CH pedals, and I found them uncomfortable even before experimenting with center sticks. They concked out on me a while ago due to a problem on the circuit board. All in all, they were sturdy and lasted a long time. The only complaint I can come up with is the center detent, but that is just personal prefrence. I then got the Saitek pedals and I am equally satisfied with them. They have no center detent, they are a good width, and they haven't complained to me yet.

That is correct as well. You usually don't see airliners with speedbrakes extended for the entrie approach because their usually large flaps provide drag.

:megalol::megalol:

First off, no question is dumb. If it is intelligent, that is, and yours certainly fits the bill.:thumbup: The engines take time to spool up and down. Idle to full power may take about 4-5 seconds.(In new engines, old ones take longer.) This is a LONG time if you find yourself low on short final over an obstacle.:joystick: However, the relationship between delay length and engine speed is not linear. That is, at about 75% core RPM, the time to full power falls markedly. The speedbrakes are extended to allow the engines to be run at about 75%-80% RPM (just a guess, but probably close) on final. If you need to go around, you can remove all the drag of the brakes in about 3 seconds. Combine this with the engines already putting out about 80% thrust, and it's easier and safer to go around. The alternative would be to run the engines at or near idle, and in that case, you would need to predict every power change by at least 4~8 seconds. One more effect to keep in mind is that rapid throttle changes can cause a flameout. For example, being low on final realizing: ZOMG I NEED POWER NAO!!!!!! and slamming the throttle to the stop can result in a total loss of power, dignity, money, and possibly life. Of course newer engines with more sophisticated controls eliminate this problem. This is the case on the A-10, so you can probably slam the levers around without too much worry. However, that's bad karma and is best avoided. Just my US$0.02

Well, the A-10A manual has all the fuel planning charts, including effects from different stores. The airframe and engines have not changed, so I assume those figures are fairly accurate. But I think ED will publish these charts for the A-10C in the manual released with the simulation.

HB, man!:thumbup: You're never too young to play with computer games/simulations!

Aero Vodochody L-39

:megalol:

NOPE!