BlueRidgeDx

A flashing pointing cross means that the missile lock will not survive launch transients, and could very well be the cause of the problem. Don't shoot unless the pointing cross is steady. Also, Force Correlate is for non-moving point targets. Don't use FC for anything other than large stationary objects like bridges, ships, and buildings.

I don't understand why so many people can't get past the fact that FS9/FSX developers are capable of producing content for other platforms, as if it's some insurmountable task. The developers are well aware of the technical differences between the two platforms. A hydraulic system is still a hydraulic system; the only difference is the code in which it is written. I wonder if people are equally as dumbfounded and incredulous at the thought of someone learning a second language? "How can you speak English AND Chinese?! Can you even SAY 'airplane' in Chinese?!" Uh, yeah.

An MC-130H Combat Talon II would be a great choice. They do low level work at night, on NVGs, in Indian Country, inserting SOF personnel and equipment via airland and airdrop. The AC-130U would be my second choice.

Your opinion is valid. Just realize that I'm a customer too, and I feel differently than you do.

Better ASLAR than the Snacko! I concede the point, though I think an argument could be made that ASLAR is actually tactical. There are going to be unique learning objectives for every platform, and some percentage of them are going to be non-tactical in nature; there's no way around that.

I don't have to try very hard; every task I listed in my original post is introduced, practiced, and demonstrated to proficiency at UPT and IFF in T-6's and T-38's. I only listed about 1/69th of the things a pilot is responsible for knowing. When you show up on day one at the Formal Training Unit (FTU) for your particular MDS, they do not teach you how to fly TACAN approaches, or what a 20 degree popup attack looks like. No one expects you to be a dive-bombing zen-master when you graduate from IFF, but you will know the basic mechanics and procedures required to fly the profiles. I say again, UPT (and to a large extent, IFF) teach administrative flying - the stuff you do on the way to and from the target. The stuff that is the same every single sortie, and should require exactly 0 brain bytes to accomplish. The FTU and your squadron teach you tactical flying - the employment of your aircraft as a weapon system. Zero hours are wasted teaching guys to do things they learned in UPT.

I better not try then, huh?

So, you concede that you learn everything except how to employ your follow on MWS in a training airplane then? My point was (and is) that it's more realistic to learn administrative contact flying, and the FUNDAMENTALS of tactical flying in a trainer. I'm not sure how things work in the Marine Corps UAS pipeline, but it doesn't sound anything like the USAF pipeline.

Is that better or worse than the "stupid pilot" keeping his mouth shut and letting the next guy take the jet with FOD in the cockpit? I wonder how many maintainers have said "oh shit" when they realize they're missing a fastener after closing up an access panel? I wonder if speaking up about it would classify him as an "idiot"? Don't take this too seriously, I like poking fun as much as the next guy

It's the VHF/FM/Homing antenna.

About 1 in every 100 virtual pilots knows how to perform the basic administrative flying tasks that must be completed on the way to and from the target. Know how to get yourself around the conventional range pattern without fouling? Know what SETOS is and how to calculate it? Know how to fly an a proper engine failure takeoff profile? Know how to fly a TACAN penetration? Know how to fly Fighting Wing, and what your primary responsibilities as a wingman are? Have enough SA to remain within your assigned airspace container? Know how to fly a proper overhead approach? If not, you should be flying a training airplane in a training environment. They don't teach you how to fly an overhead at the A-10 FTU. And truthfully, you'd also learn basic tactical flying at IFF in a training airplane too. So if you don't already know how to fly proper tactical formation, fly a proper popup attack to 20 LALD release, or how to properly Two Target Strafe, the T-38 would be more realistic.

No, see the post above where I explained the steps in detail. VAR TGT ELEV is set in the IFFCC Weapons menu, which is accessible via the HUD and UFC when the IFFCC switch is in TEST.

After initially pressing the DATA rocker, the elevation shown flashing in the HUD defaults to current steerpoint elevation, but it can be changed to whatever value you want by pushing the DATA rocker in the desired directon. After setting the desired value, pressing ENTER will store the value as the HOT elevation.

Sorry; I assumed the manual covered this material. First of all, in order to use Variable Target Elevation, the AUTO elevation mode must be turned off (it's on by default). To turn it off, press the UFC DATA button, and note the flashing value in the center of the HUD. Use the DATA rocker to adjust the value to the desired elevation. Press the UFC ENTER button to accept the value. You are now in HOT elevation mode. You could stop here, and the pipper would no longer bounce around when strafing in hilly terrain. But if you don't know the exact elevation of the target, you might want to use the Variable Target Elevation function. To use it, place the IFFCC switch to TEST, and and use the UFC keys to navigate to the Weapons menu. At the bottom you will see a line for VAR TGT ELEV. Enter a value that represents the elevation uncertainty - if the target is at 2000ft +/- 100ft, you would enter 100. This means that IFFCC will provide two CCIP solutions - one for a target at 1900ft, and another for a target at 2100ft.

That's the one...thanks Greg. I'm snaking my way through the Smithsonian museums with my daughter. I'm talking about Wooly Mammoths while typing about EGI navigation on my iPhone, lol.

Two things: There are multiple pages on which you can set the attributes, and they act independently of each other based upon the source database of the current steerpoint. There's a thread around here where I gave the details...search for "waypoint attributes"'and you should find it. Second, the CDI sensitivity when navigating to a real navaid is based on angular displacement, so the lateral ground distance represented by one dot of CDI displacement varies proportionally with range to station. When navigating to an EGI waypoint, CDI displacement always represents a fixed distance. So you will notice a difference in CDI performance between the two scenarios, even with the sensitivity set to "Enroute".

Yes, depending on the database in use - FLT PLAN or MISSION - you can set the sensitivity on the appropriate waypoint attributes page. There's some nuance as to the appropriate page on which to set the attributes and I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'll let someone else link to the thread that discusses it.

Maybe he meant HARS? There's still some work to be done there.

Reticle jumping occurs when using AUTO (DTS) elevation in hilly, mountainous terrain. There are two good ways to stop it. The first is to setup variable target elevation in the IFFCC menu. Variable Target Elevation will enable you to engage targets for which there is elevation uncertainty. It enables dual pippers that look like the Combat Mix API/HEI dual pippers, but behave differently. The pippers will be vertically displaced from each other, with the upper pipper indicating the CCIP ballistic solution for the higher target, and the lower pipper for the lower target. The second, and best way, is to use HOT elevation instead of AUTO. This will fix the. CCIP Guns Solution to a single altitude, instead of dynamically estimating and displaying reticle depression using the DTSAS. The manual describes how to setup each one.

In the A-10 (and most other tactical aircraft) the Heading Bug is nothing more than a visual reminder of the desired heading. You would usually set it to runway heading for takeoff and landing, to anything relevant during cruise, to the final attack heading given by the JTAC, that sort of thing.

Lol. How quickly the peanut gallery bites the hand that feeds it... Is it time to break out the torches and pitchforks, fellas? We can't have just ANYBODY making our favorite jets! Let's show 'em who they're messing with! Robble, Robble, Robble!

@dejjvid: you're adding qualifiers that change the definition. A vertical climb is, quite literally, an aircraft climbing vertically; nothing more or less. The definition does not imply the ability to maintain that climb for any length of time. The A-10 demo profile calls for a pull to vertical, followed by a 540 degree roll, followed by another pull to inverted. @James: you can make a reasonable approximation of a demo configured jet by making sure you unload all weapons, ammunition, and chaff/flares, and reduce fuel load to 3,000 pounds. The only difference is you cant remove the TISL pod or a few hardpoints. Hopefully, one day we'll have more control over hardpoints, suspension equipment, and weapon configuration. It's on the wishlist.

The A-10 demo does, in fact, include a 540° roll while climbing vertically, so there's no need to put the word vertical in quotes. The problem is that in order to fly that maneuver, it requires a very steep descent to achieve the entry airspeed of 400+ knots. And, as Paul said, the demo jet has a negative drag index because the hardpoints and TISL has been removed, and the chaff/flare buckets have blanking plates installed. The jet only carries 3,000 (3,500?) pounds of fuel, giving it an extrememly light gross weight of 35,000 pounds. @Perriwen: So, yes, a stripped down demo jet at 400+ knots can (barely) squeek out a vertical rolling maneuver. Your combat configured hog cannot. EDIT: in your second video, what you see at 1:13 is a standard pull-up to a closed traffic pattern, and is only a 30° pull followed by a 60° roll. Definitely not vertical.

Since its function is not modeled in the cockpit, I've always advocated removing the TISL pod from the 3d model. Maybe when it finally goes, the pylon will go with it now.

I'm having trouble deciphering what some of you are trying to say, lol. It is true that the presence or absence of wind does not affect the AoA at which the aircraft stalls, but it is also true that wind can directly cause a stall. There are times when the airmass you are flying through is not as homogenous as some are implying. In the "real" simulator, I would typically give the clients a microburst encounter either on final, or during takeoff. In the takeoff scenario, at some point during the takeoff roll before V1, the airspeed would stagnate as the tailwind component increased. If they didn't reject the takeoff, the usual result was an attempt to rotate early - below Vr - and they would get the stick shaker, usually followed by the stick pusher and the subsequent Red Screen Of Death. The landing scenario was different because initially, you actually get increasing performance as you fly into the microburst since you're getting an increasing headwind. The headwind causes you to float high on the glideslope and the typical response is to pull the throttles back to flight idle. Even at idle, you might gain a full 20+ KIAS. Then the fun begins...you fly next into the strong downdraft core and emerge into an area of rapidly increasing tailwind. Even at TOGA thrust (which still takes 3-4 seconds on modern engines; 8-12 on older ones) you will lose 25+ knots in only a few seconds. There are many examples of microbursts exceeding the aircraft's performance capabilities. Delta 191 is a textbook example...you can even find the CVR audio online. I'm purposely leaving out the details about keeping the engines spooled up on approach, and about the approach idle function of most FADEC engines, in order to illustrate a point. The point being that there are localized phenomenon such, as microbursts, that disprove the argument that the airmass surrounding an airplane is always some ideal homogenous mass. All that being said, I don't think this has any bearing on the SFM/AFM comparison.