BlueRidgeDx

No worries, Echo. Still, I don't think the term is ambiguous at all...regardless of whether you're in a taildragger or a tricycle, "3-point" means having all three wheels on the ground - regardless of the attitude required to achieve that condition. I understand that for taildragger types, discussing a 3-point landing will involve a lot of talk about pitch attitude. But linking the pitch attitude required in a taildragger to the broader definition of the term is incorrect. Like any jet, the A-10 is landed in normal "flared" fashion on the mains first - a "2-point attitude". Then the nose is lowered to the runway - a "3-point attitude". If you're more comfortable thinking about it in taildragger terms, a wheel landing is performed on the mains first - a "2-point attitude". Then the tail is lowered to the runway - a "3-point attitude". The concept is identical. The only confusion seems to stem from the fact that taildraggers are sometimes landed in a full-stall condition that requires all three wheels touching down at exactly the same time; skipping the 2-point attitude. It is in this context that the 3-point landing comes up. As you can see, the 3-point landing is a special case, and does not affect the definition So to recap: 3-point landing in a taildragger: Good (usually). 3-point landing in a tricycle/jet: Bad (always). 3-point attitude in a taildragger: 3 wheels on the ground (results in a nose-high attitude) 3-point attitude in a tricycle/jet: 3 wheels on the ground (results in a generally level attitude.

MALF is used to acknowledge IFFCC fault messages. UPDT is used to perform a HUD UPDATE to the EGI INS. FWD/MID/AFT, as well as the unmarked buttons are all related to the new ARC-210 radio which is not simulated in DCS.

I'm not talking about a three-point landing, which is never, ever done intentionally in a jet/tricycle airplane. I'm talking about lowering the nosewheel after landing to achieve a three-point attitude which, regardless of what kind of airplane is in question, means all three gear on the ground. Like with most transport aircraft, the quickest way to get the A-10 stopped is to transfer as much weight to the wheels as possible, so that the brakes are more effective. Keeping the nose up in aerobrake fashion makes the airplane lighter on the wheels, thus the brakes are less effective. Edit: Here's a video that I took a few years ago that shows what was almost a nose first landing in a CRJ. If the Captain hadn't intervened, the FO probably would have folded up the nose gear.

I don't know squat about taildraggers but in tricycle-gear jets, a 3-point attitude means all three gear in contact with the runway. From the A-10 Dash-1: "Maximum Performance Braking. If maximum braking is required during an abort or after touchdown, minimum stopping distance can be achieved in a three-point attitude, throttles idle, speedbrakes 100%, and wheel brakes applied with a firm continuous force sufficient to feel anti-skid cycling."

The only thing missing from the list is selecting EGI on the Nav Mode Select Panel in front of the stick. EAC won't engage until that final step is taken.

The WOW switch is on the main gear, so you can get the boards out before the nosewheel is down. Nonetheless, the most effective braking technique in the A-10 is a 3-point attitude with 100% speedbrakes and maximum braking*. Aerobraking isn't something commonly done in the A-10. *You should not need maximum braking. In fact on most runways, you won't need to touch the brakes at all until the very end of the rollout when you turn off the runway.

It means that the SPI is the IFFCC ballistic (CCIP) solution. If the solution is outside the HUD FOV, SPI will revert to the current Steerpoint.

It's almost like arguing with a 9/11 truther. No amount of evidence or common sense can overcome the ego investment made by a true believer.

lol...

I will only point out the glaringly obvious faults in your hypothesis: You have no idea what munitions have been employed over the last 35 years, so you cannot possibly make the claim that are not used. You contradict yourself. You say AIRs have "never been used once", except for that "one time"...lol. AIRs most certainly are used to destroy armor, soft skinned vehicles, and anything else that you want to go 'boom'. What do you think they're used on? CCRP is no less accurate than CCIP. You're confusing the fact that deliveries from a steep dive are more accurate because the ballistics are greatly simplified. CCRP can be used in a steep dive (more accurate), and CCIP can be used from a level delivery (less accurate). You have simply made up your mind based upon incomplete information and erroneous assumptions.

AFAlinebacker, Sorry, but no one who actually "spends time in the vault" would be having the discussion you're having right now. Are you an officer in the Air Force? Or are you hoping to go to the Zoo someday?

Maybe in a Cessna or a Warrior, but not in any jet. V1 is a calculated value based not only on gross weight, but thrust setting, flap setting, temperature, headwind/tailwind component, runway length, runway condition, runway slope, and other stuff. To some extent Vr and V2 can also be affected by certain factors and required additives too. Vref is also affected by landing configuration - flap setting and speedbrake position. The calculations for takeoff are usually done by a computer based performance program. Landing data is generated for a range of values, or calculated in the cockpit. Speed books can simplify the process by printing data for common configurations at a range of weights. These numbers can then be adjusted on the fly based on non-standard conditions. In any event, you're not going to memorize the performance data. Unless you're Rainman.

The TOLD numbers in both the utility and my .pdf were generated from the real A-10 performance data. No need to read those spaghetti charts.

Ugh, I'm wrong about the depression value for the Standby Pipper. I was thinking of HARS, not the Standby mode. Thats what i get for posting while i was grilling out. Sorry if I slowed you down. Let this be a lesson...don't post and grill!

Here's a link to the TOLD document that I put together a while back. Check out the post for definitions of the various terms. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=59553

It depends. If the depressible pipper in the normal HUD modes requires 34 mils to be where you want it, then in standby mode, it will need to be set to 102 mils. You still say mils, either way. If the standby pipper reads 34 mils, then in normal mode, the depressible pipper would only show 11ish mils.

Yep, there is a handy program created by a forum member that calculates some takeoff data. I don't remember the who/where, though. Alternatively, if you search the forum for the term "TOLD", you should find a .pdf that I created for takeoff/landing data. It was actually done up for Nellis during the early beta, but the speeds are still valid.

Yep, it's mils which is 1/1000th of a radian. There's no practical value in converting to degrees, since everything to do with bombing and gunnery is defined with mils. The depressible pipper is only really there for bombing/gunnery, so it's not as handy for other uses.

In standby mode, there is a 3:1 compression factor on the depression value. To get he same reference as 34 mils in GUNS, you'd have to crank the standby pipper to 102 mils.

I'm not an expert on the ME, but if I recall correctly, this can happen when using the Pepare Mission feature, and then subsequently changing the loadout. DSMS is expecting the original loadout and sees an inventory mismatch. Someone more knowledgeable than I will be able to set you straight, but I think that you can delete the saved DSMS info from the uncompressed .miz file, and that should fix it. I think. I'd wait for a second opinion before i tried it though...

Yep, technique only!

I concede that there are more accurate methods, but 3:1 is more frequently used because it's easier "mental math" when you're coming out of the flight levels at Mach .80 on a Pilot's Discretion descent without VNAV doing the work for you.

Are you talking about a non-tactical situation where you are holding prior to an approach? If so, flying a racetrack pattern with 1 minute legs, right turns at 30 degrees of bank, at 180 knots is a standard holding pattern. As far as the descent goes, generally speaking, you would aim to be 5 miles from the threshold at about 1,500ft - the 3:1 rule tells you that it takes 3 miles to descend 1,000ft at a 3 degree glideslope (ADD: another technique is to plan 300ft of altitude loss per nautical mile flown. Hat tip: Loz). At jet approach speeds, you're looking for 700-800fpm on the VSI with a 3 degree glideslope. A proper approach requires flying the right speed, which is 130 knots plus 2 knots for every 1,000lb over 30,000lb gross weight. Over the threshold, reduce thrust and flare to reduce rate of descent; landing speed is 10 knots slower than the calculated approach speed. The numbers above are for the normal landing configuration - gear down, flaps 20, speedbrakes 40%, and both engines operating.

Yes, the System slew rate is the one set on the STAT page with THRTL selected.

It should. Edit: the slew sensitivity used to be the other way around until it got fixed. I'm not sure what patch it was.