BlueRidgeDx

Sobek, If you turn off the anti-skid and jam on the brakes, you're going to blow the mains within about 2-3 seconds. I too have always felt that brake effectiveness is too poor, but without a precise way to measure in-game performance, I've never been able to bug it. Are you guys adding objects at fixed intervals in the ME? I haven't tried that...is it precise enough?

I think I saw somewhere that TARS will eventually model the procedural aspects of HQII, which would be awesome. Combine that with Mode 3 requirements (don't forget to set your Alerts in IFFCC), and you can add a whole layer of procedural bliss. It might even mean something once the FC3 Eagles are prowling the skies in MP. Before you know it, 2 will be asking you to pass a mickey on Uniform.

The subject was beaten to death in another thread (I'm on my iPhone, so I'm not going to search for a link), but the long and short of it is, the pitch and roll bars are presently acting as repeaters of the deviation needles. That is, they show the angular deviation from the centerline of the localizer and glideslope paths. What they SHOULD do, is provide pitch and roll steering commands that if followed, will establish or maintain the desired path. It is literally a "dual-cue flight director", google it for pics and video. At various points of DCS development, they worked properly albeit with incorrect sensitivity. Since then, they've turned into simple repeaters. It's a known issue, but I have no idea when or if it will be addressed.

Correct, the A-10 has no onboard capability to perform a "0/0" landing. You must land visually following an instrument approach. At present, the pitch and roll steering bars are not implemented properly in DCS. It's best to just turn them off for now.

The glideslope transmitter is located adjacent to the touchdown zone, so as you approach the threshold, the glideslope becomes increasingly sensitive to even small deviations. You should not use the glideslope below about 100-150 feet, since the sensitivity will lead to overcontrolling. If you don't see the runway at 200ft, you should go around. Assuming you see the runway at or before DA and you go visual, keep the glideslope in your instrument scan until you pick up the VASI or PAPI, then fly that until you acquire your touchdown aimpoint. You should aim at a point 1000ft beyond the threshold. You will drive high on the PAPI as you approach the flare, but by then, you should be focused solely on placing the TVV on the far end of the runway as you touchdown. Edit: Grabbed a bite to eat in the middle of posting, and got sniped...

Haha! That's Badass! I like it way better this way. I think the faux canopy should go away for sure, but the rest of it looks great.

I'm downloading it now. I like it much better than the others. Without the panel lines and such, the uniform color of the first few is too plain, I think. Adding a more complex paint scheme makes it a little more aesthetic.

If you're having trouble with CCIP, it's because you're doing something wrong. It works exactly as it's supposed to. Just sayin'.

Ron Jon is just a touristy thing that you "have" to do at least once. Buy a T-shirt, look around for a bit, and scam on some surfer chicks, then be on your way. The Canaveral Seashore isn't much of a park. It's really just a large expanse of swamp and marshland filled with alligators. In fact, at some point during your drive, you're likely to say out loud, "This doesn't look right". But if you're a true aviation nerd, you'll want to be able to say that you saw the Shuttle runway and the launch pads. The part about the beach is only useful for convincing "normal" people to make the trek with you.

"Justin", This is one of the difficulties of having such a faithful simulator. Yes, there are ballistics tables containing the sight depressions for various weapons using various delivery parameters. Unfortunately, the tables are contained in manual supplements, and in mission planning software that will never be in the public domain due to the security of it's content. Manual deliveries are practiced in the real world, but we sim pilots don't have access to the required data, unfortunately.

You can combine beach fun and planespotting if you head out to Patrick AFB. You can sit on the beach on the extended runway centerline about a quarter mile from the threshold. It's not always a busy place, but the beach is fairly nice. Just head east from MCO on "The Beachline" expressway. Forty-five minutes later, you'll be in Cape Canaveral/Cocoa Beach. Just take A1A south from there, and you'll see the base and the beach. If you haven't been there before, you should stop at the Ron Jon surf shop in Cocoa Beach - you'll pass it on A1A. If you decide to head that direction, there's also a park called Canaveral National Seashore. You get there from Titusville via the Max Brewer causeway. You pay about 5 bucks (per car), and then enjoy a "scenic" drive across the marsh lands adjacent to the Kennedy Space Center. Watch out for Alligators crossing the road...seriously. Anyway, it's probably only a 6-7 mile drive, but it feels like you're in the middle of nowhere. Don't worry, though, you'll drive right past the threshold of the Shuttle Landing Facility, and you can see Shuttle Launchpad from up close. I don't know what it looks like now that the shuttles are gone, though. Anyway, at the end of the trek, there's a nice beach at which to frolick for the afternoon. If you want to head the other direction, take I-4 west from Orlando to the St.Petersburg/Clearwater area. The water there is beautiful, and the beaches on the Gulf of Mexico are much nicer than the Atlantic beaches due to the powder sand and lower surf. Its great for letting the kids venture into the water without worrying about 6 foot breakers. I recommend Indian Rocks beach, but any place will do. Anyway, MacDill AFB is there, but there's not much going on - it's a tanker base. And because of it's location, there's no real way to do much spotting. Edit: I forgot to mention that there's a little park right at the Orlando airport with a B-52D on static display. MCO got its ICAO code because it used to be McCoy AFB. If you're flying into Sanford (SFB), it might not be worth the traffic and the tolls to get to MCO to see it.

The airshow I mentioned was held at a civilian airport with a 10,900ft runway but no barrier. Wright-Patterson AFB which is 5 miles away has a 12,600ft runway with BAK-12's on each end. Most DoD assets would participate (i.e. land at Dayton) despite the lack of a barrier. The F-117, on the other hand, would only land if a temporary/mobile barrier was installed. Thus, the airshow always had WPAFB come out and install a barrier. If I recall correctly, the only aircraft that specifically REQUIRED a barrier to be installed was the F-117.

The runway in use didn't have a barrier installed, so there was no point in dropping the hook. We always had a mobile barrier set up for the airshow in Dayton, but as I recall, there were only a few airplanes that couldn't waive the requirement - the F-117 being one of them.

This one? http://www.pacaf.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-111114-045.pdf

Yep, missed that the first time through. Nonetheless, the canopy itself never actually fogged over like the accident aircraft's did, and it didn't exactly occur at a critical phase of flight, either. Edit: I didn't see a link to the actual report, so here it is: http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/022112_f16_report_executive_summary.pdf

I didn't see the canopy get fogged over at any point in that video, though. All I saw was the normal air conditioning condensation, which wasn't the cited cause. The AIB says: "Cockpit ECS fog started developing in the MA as it approached the flare. As the throttle was retarded to idle, fog began to envelope the entire cockpit. As the MP began to set a pitch attitude for the aerobrake passing through 10-11 degrees, he lost sight of the HUDgun-cross and was unable to use the Nose Wheel Steering (NWS) indictor and AOA indexers for a visual reference. CSFDR data indicates that the aerobrake varied between 5 and 11-degrees AOA during the rollout. The MP started losing forward visibility first. Using the view out the side of the canopy, the MP focused on keeping the aircraft tracking down the runway. The MP reached for the DEFOG lever and shoved it full forward. He held it in that position for one or two seconds with no effect and then recycled, with yet again no change in ECS fog or airflow. The MP then experienced brief vertigo, almost a tumbling sensation, and considered ejection but was concerned for spectators and aircraft along the runways. The MP did not consider initiating a go-around because of the disorientation and no assurance that the ECS fog would dissipate, rendering the MP blind while navigating through the congested traffic pattern." Edited for format.

One in twenty is enough when you throw a thousand rounds downrange. I assume you're familiar with how CBU's work? You might want to tell that to the F-15E that was shot down by AAA on 17 Jan 1991. We also lost an F-4 and an F-16 to AAA on 19 Jan and 27 Feb, respectively. An F-15E was shot down by an SA-2 on 19 Jan 1991, so ECM didn't save him - or three F-16's, an A-10 and an F-117 lost to radar guided SAMs since then.

The Rapid Fire function of the Maverick is actually resident in the LAU-88, not in the missile. If DSMS stepped to the other station after rifling a maverick, the next Mav would be looking at the boresight instead of the target area.

Sorry I missed this post. Thanks for the update, my daughter will love the Apple Jack skin!

The CDI scale is +/- 10° in with TACAN selected on the NMSP. Also, NDB data cannot be displayed on the CDI. The ADF function is povided by the #1 Bearing Pointer only.

Yes, because one lucky shot against a predictable target invalidates the entire stealth idea.

Yep, if we planned to lose 100 hogs a day, I can only imagine what the projected total attrition for all air assets would have been. Of course the flip side of that is, can you imagine how many smoldering T-72's there would have been? There are a few other articles that discuss how the prominent strategy at the time was to form a coherent defense to stall the Soviet advance short of Bonne while waiting for authorization to release the tactical nukes. After that, I suppose it wouldn't matter much. Edit: To make this post more On-Topic, here's a linky to another article that talks about what the Hog really needs/needed. Notice that SAR isn't on the list. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html

Viper, it was an article written in the Unites States Air Force Air University's publication "Air and Space Power Journal". The author describes the equations used to generate the numbers, and presents various scenarios representing both high and low loss rates. Here's a linky: http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jul-aug/dotson.html

During the Cold War, everyone knew that A-10s were going to be shot down in droves. It was expected to lose fully 20% of the A-10 force per day. It was a price we were willing to pay. does that make it ineffective? I don't think so. Claiming hat the A-10 is useless against an enemy more sophisticated than cave dwelling terrorists is nonsensical. It kills things and breaks their stuff at incredible rates: even at the highest rate of attrition against the ungodly Soviet surface-to-air threat, they were still expected to produce 20 kills for each loss.

Haha! I just went out to the living room to ask my daughter about her favorite Pony, and guess what she was watching? Any chance you could do Apple Jack for her? That and the little dragon are her favorites.