BlueRidgeDx

Try watching that F-15 Raytheon Trophy video in HD, then tell me that it's unrealistic to have circular scratching/crazing. It's most certainly there when along the line-of-sight to any bright light source. It looks just like the hardwood floor of any basketball court or high school gym that's been polished with an orbital. And aircraft transparencies, from PC-12s to F-16s are generally made out of the same polycarbonate materials, so a comparison between the two is perfectly valid. Anywhere a mechanic or crew chief has put some elbow grease removing removing bug guts and polishing a windscreen, you're going to see that circular scratch pattern. Simple as that.

Okay, so this is statement is false. That s what I get for pulling a number out of my ass and trying to prove an unnecessary point. My intent was to debunk the oft cited notion that it was not possible to stop the aircraft on the runway using normal techniques. I ruined the entire premise by myself suggesting an abnormal technique; to coast to a stop on the runway without using the brakes. This is never done in the real world. As airspeed decreases, the effectivenes of aerodynamic surfaces decreases. Thus the speedbrakes are most effective early in the rollout. Decelerating through 80-100 knots, only light braking is required to reach taxi speed very quickly. I just flew two approaches at Kutaisi, and went off the end at 29 knots. 20 knots is taxi speed. So if I can very nearly reach taxi speed on a 7,600ft runway without brakes, then clearly there should be no reason to go off the end if you're using anything close to the proper techniqe. What I should have said is "practically", as in, "Get the nose on the ground and with full speedbrakes, the airplane will practically coast to a stop without wheel brakes on an 8,000 ft runway." My apologies for being imprecise.

Cant watch the track at the moment, but no, if you're able to fly the whole approach at idle, then you're flying too steep of an approach. The approach should be flown with power, and with the speedbrakes at 40%. The runway threshold should be right between the 0 and -5 degree pitch ladder bars, and the TVV should be placed right on the beginning of the pavement. As you descend through 30 feet, you should smoothly fly the TVV up to the far end of the runway while bringing the power to idle. The approach speed depends on weight - 130 knots plus 2 knots for every 1,000lb over 30,000lb. Landing speed is 10 knots slower than approach speed. You should lose those 10 knots during the flare. At no point should you make a navy-style carrier landing. There actually is a case where you do make a navy-style landing, but it's not relevant here and I don't want to muddy the waters any more than they already are.

There's turbulence in DCS already, and it's much better than the hack job we got in FSX. The FSX turbulence is very poorly modeled, and its been roundly criticized by all. There are certain aspects of the weather engine that are better than DCS; overcast that doesn't cover the entire world/map, multiple cloud layers, thermals and ridge lift, for example. But the wild windshifts, crazy visibility changes, poor precipitation effects, and retarded turbulence is not something I'd like to see emulated by any DCS product.

Yes, I tested it thoroughly last week and it is confirmed that anti-skid is the culprit. Executing a Minimum Run landing with immediate maximum performance braking results in a stopping distance that is longer than a normal landing followed by three seconds of coasting followed by braking that doesn't invoke anti-skid. An extensive bug report has been filed. Viper also made a similar report, errrr, a while ago... I did not attempt any landings with the anti-skid off, since I was careful not to brake hard enough to activate the anti-skid feature. Nonetheless, I keep hearing people say that they can't stop on runway and the only explanation is that they're just not using the proper (real) technique. Despite the fact that the landing distances are nearly double what they should be, they're still short enough to land on any hard-surface runway on the map. You just can't come smoking in, land at midfield, and then aerobrake until you run out of runway. Fly the approach with the speedbrakes at 40%. Get in on the ground in the first 1,000ft of runway. Get the nose wheel down and the speedbrakes to 100% without delay. At 100 knots, start gentle braking. Using that technique there isn't a "real" runway you can't stop on, regardless of weight. I purposely exclude the "X" runways near batumi, and the crop-duster field near Kutaisi...

Not sure what you mean about being restricted to group/own. As long as you only use 4 characters, you can put whatever you want in there...everything 1111 to ZZZZ and any combination in between. In multiplayer with multiple flights, seeing a callsign instead of a Track Number is much easier to interpret. Edit: I think you mean, "can I type in a callsign as the address for a SADL message?". The answer to that is no, you must type it in as "Flight Position-Group ID".

Callsign works; its limited to 4 characters. So try HOG1, RKT4, that kind of thing.

If the Mission Editor is not lying, then the runway length at Kutaisi is 2500m, or roughly 7600ft. I landed there with a left engine failure and forgot to pull the emergency brake handle, so I had no brakes. I had 5,500lb of fuel and a gross weight of 38,000lb. I landed normally and coasted to a stop on the runway using only speedbrakes. Eddie was there, so he can confirm the story. I think maybe peeps are afraid of using the brakes, or something? There's nothing wrong with using the brakes... It's not always necessary, beneficial, or desired to roll out to the end of the runway. There are plenty of situations that don't involve visiting the EOR pad before you park the jet.

For the record, the gear inhibit is based solely on Landing Gear Handle position. It doesn't matter if the gear are actually up or down... Edit: It shouldn't matter. I haven't personally tested in DCS.

Haha! I had something similar happen to me on my second MP flight during taxi with a 4-ship. I pressed the F2 key to check the outside view for wingtip clearance with the HAS, but I must've had a key assignment wrong somewhere... It didn't switch the view, but it did cause my NWS to hardover and I couldn't get it unstuck. If I constantly jiggled the rudder pedals, I could kinda go in a general direction. But I only went a few hundred feet looking like I had no idea how to steer the airplane before my left main hit the grass and I spun to stop, stuck. My sensitive ego was bruised. Then there was the time I forgot that my key assignments were different between the tester's build and my normal install. That one led me to open the canopy instead of cancelling the Master Caution during a single-engine approach for my checkride. Ugh. lol.

Did you enter the desired steerpoint elevation in to the WAYPT 1/2 page? If yes, are you saying that doing so caused all other waypoints to have the same (new) elevation? IIRC, the WAYPT page does not update when you cycle waypoints using the HOTAS or STEER switches. So you might be changing steerpoints while looking at a static CDU page. Try changing the elevation value, then try changing to a different waypoint by typing the name into the LSK on the WAYPT page. If you entered a HOT elevation using the HUD, then there are caveats to address.

The HSI is slaved in normal operation, so it doesn't suffer from acceleration or turning errors. It's the big instrument below the attitude indicator.

And the reason it's typical is because...

The loading cart carries 575 rounds, so it just works out to 1150.

Anti-skid is, and has been porked in DCS for a long time. On a dry runway, braking distance is almost exactly double what the airplane is capable of. In the real world, without anti-skid it is exceedingly difficult to max perform the airplane without locking the wheels due to a lack of tactile feedback. The problem with this, of course, is that a locked wheel has a friction coefficient much lower than one rolling but partially skidding. When the anti-skid is doing its job, you're leaving skid marks on the runway because the wheels are neither locked, nor rotating as fast as the aircraft is traveling. If the wheels do lock early in the landing roll or during a rejected takeoff, you have about 2-5 seconds - depending on groundspeed - before the locked wheel blows its tire. Without a tire, the brake is useless and your stopping distance increases exponentially. In the A-10, the anti-skid system is not as sophisticated as newer systems. If either wheel approaches a locked condition, brake pressure is reduced to both brakes simultaneously and equally. Each wheel brake is not individually modulated.

Space stabilization is a 2d capability inherent to the Maverick missile itself, whereas ground stabilization requires special inputs from systems inboard the aircraft to slave the sensor to a calculated point in 3d space. If these systems are inoperative, you can still employ the maverick with ground stabilization, the wagon wheel, or the DLZ. You just have to do it using space stabilize and the missile video only.

It should be a free gyro while slewing, but presently it is not modeled that way.

As long as you hold TMS Left the Mav seeker acts as a space-stabilized free gyro. It will attempt to maintain a fixed azimuth and elevation with respect to Earth, regardless of what you do with the airplane. Edit: To reiterate, it's not really TMS Left/Long. It's momentary not a toggle, so you have to keep it pressed in order to maintain the stabilized state.

Eddie's vids are the bee's knees. Stellar initiative.

You have a few ways of diagnosing a problem like this. The Real Time Safe Escape (RTSE) cues include the Minimum Range Staple (MRS), Minimum Range Caret (MRC), the Desired Release Cue (DRC), and the Valid Solution Indicator (VSI). These RTSE cues are driven by tabular ballistic data and account for various IFFCC settings such as DTOF, MIN ALT, FUSE TIME, and SEM. Safe escape is calculated based on the highest of three altitudes: 1) Fuzing. Based upon the fuze arm time, function time, and Height of Function (HOF) a minimum TOF is computed below which the weapons will dud. 2) Fragmentation. Based upon the weapon frag pattern, a minimum altitude is computed below which you run an increased risk of self-fragmentation. 3) Terrain. Based upon the selected MIN ALT and SEM, an abort altitude is calculated at which the selected SEM must be initiated in order to prevent penetration of the selected MIN ALT. If IFFCC calculates that the highest of these three conditions will be violated prior to weapon release, the Valid Solution Indicator will be displayed in the reticle. When you select NONE as the SEM, frag is no longer considered in the calculations, and the minimum altitude is based upon the altitude lost during dive recovery for a CLM SEM. So what you're probably seeing in the 10 LALD POP is that the RTSE is being driven by fragmentation. You'll need to increase your release altitude. At the Pull Up Point (PUP), try pulling to the desired dive angle plus five degrees; 10 + 5 = 15. Hold that for 5-10 seconds while you acquire the target, then roll in. That should get you above the MK-82 frag pattern. Finally, for LALD deliveries (20° or less), the TLT SEM is usually less restrictive.

Yikes. One way to do it is to acknowlege the tasking, hook the the point, make SPI, and slave all. Then take a Mark which will automatically take the symbol's elevation. Then you can CNCL the tasking to declutter the TAD. Switching Mark steering and then you can broadcast your Mark as SPI to your wingmen. The AUTO sequencing of steerpoints does not affect the elevation of the SPI unless the SPI has reverted to STPT (China Aft/Long) and you are in DTS mode.

It's a known issue where certain failures are either not repaired, or occur again after being repaired.

As I explained in the other thread regarding landings, you need to stop aerobraking; it doesn't work in the A-10. Get the nose on the ground and with full speedbrakes, the airplane will coast to a stop without wheel brakes on an 8,000 ft runway.

With so many different opinions competing for attention, its easier to look at what the Dash-1 has to say about the matter: "MINIMUM RUN LANDING. For a minimum run landing, the final approach speed (gear and flaps down and speed brakes 40%) should be reduced by 10 knots from the on-speed AOA indication or computed minimum, whichever is faster. The airspeed indicator should be used to fly a minimum run landing since the AOA indexer may indicate slow "\ /" only, and will not provide sufficient guidance for a safe approach. Power should be sufficient to maintain the final approach speed and sink rate until touchdown. Select speed brakes 100%immediately after touchdown. If maximum performance braking is required, immediately achieve a three point attitude, place the throttles to idle, and apply wheel brakes with a firm continuous force, sufficient to feel anti-skid cycling." and; "...final turn airspeed with landing gear down, full flaps, and speed brakes 40%. For final turn airspeed at 30,000 Lbs total aircraft weight, use 145 KIAS plus 2 knots per additional 1000 pounds of fuel." and; "For final approach airspeed at 30,000 Lbs total aircraft weight, use 130 KIAS plus 2 knots per additional 1000 Lbs of fuel for full flaps. For exact approach speeds, see 1A-10C-1-1." and; "WARNING Total reliance on either the AOA system or airspeed computation may result in a reduced stall margin."

Not to nitpick, but wet runways don't reduce the effectiveness of aerodynamic surfaces. i.e. speedbrakes, spoilers, thrust reversers, etc. It is wheel braking that is adversely affected due to the reduced friction coefficient of the runway. Landing distance would be equal for two airplanes landing without wheel brakes on a wet vs. a dry runway. On the other hand, landing distance would vary significantly if both aircraft used wheel brakes. The landing distance on the wet runway would be longer.