Jump to content

Dragon1-1

Members
  • Posts

    3879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Community Answers

  1. Dragon1-1's post in Wing stress damage non-existent. was marked as the answer   
    You won't see damage after a single flight. You will see damage after doing it on every flight, day after day, for some time, and then landing the thing on the boat. Your crew chief will likely see it first and be ticked off at what you're doing to his jet. The squadron CO wouldn't be happy about having to write a jet off early. That's the sort of thing we're talking about here. 
    A plane in Red Bull Air Race has to hold together for the duration of the race. That's it. A Viper doesn't deal with salt water, carrier traps, carrier launches and all the general beating up that Navy birds have to endure. I don't know what was the official policy on the "Top Gun switch" in the USN back when the old Hornet served, but it had to do with preserving the jet's operational life. 
  2. Dragon1-1's post in Female pilot model was marked as the answer   
    They mostly flew Yaks, Pe-2s and (most famously) Po-2s, though. I'm not sure about the La-7, but the I-16 was mostly an early war thing and unlikely to have been assigned to female pilots. By the time they were having women fly, there was plenty of Yak-1s. Also, Lavochkins were the best the Soviets had at the time, and as it happens, the good stuff was rarely assigned to female regiments. As such, it's probably not historically accurate for either airframe.
    It'd actually be really nice to have the Yak-1, seeing as it was a docile, well-behaved aircraft that was nonetheless still able to run circles around the German fighters of the time. Armament wasn't terribly heavy, but it was powerful enough, and being mounted on the centerline, rather easy to aim. We don't have an appropriate map anyway, but any of the Yak's incarnations would be a joy to fly.
  3. Dragon1-1's post in Blind HMS was marked as the answer   
    That's because you have NVGs on, not HMS. I think the defaults might have gotten swapped around.
  4. Dragon1-1's post in KC-135 tanker lights are impossible to see for me. was marked as the answer   
    In the A-10, you shouldn't be seeing any of them during the day. The director lights were designed for the likes of B-52, with the receptacle way behind the cockpit. Both are visible in the F-16, for example, although by no means easy to see. The A-10 has its slipway in the nose, your reference is the boom itself (it gets illuminated by your AAR light at night), not the lights. 
  5. Dragon1-1's post in LADD vs DTOS was marked as the answer   
    It's a legacy mode meant for strictly preplanned strikes. It was originally designed for use with nuclear weapons, but it should work well enough to also loft CBUs. For regular bombs, it's not the best because of low accuracy. 
    Basically, the use case is when you want to follow the exact loft parameters you planned. Otherwise, it's inferior to CCRP (DTOS is a visual designation mode, LADD works off the SPI).
  6. Dragon1-1's post in No complaints, technical question!! Why does the F16 trim for Pitch but not for roll? was marked as the answer   
    How about an answer that doesn't take 12 minutes to watch? Dunno why would it be marked as solution, I wasn't able to find the answer skipping through the video.
    For the record, the reason is that the Viper's FLCS in roll is actually pretty dumb. AFAIK, it was decided not to overcomplicate things when the Viper was being developed, the designers had no idea if the relaxed stability concept will pan out, and as such, made it as simple as possible. The pitch component was a really big deal, due to relaxed stability, but roll wasn't unstable, so they didn't bother implementing a system to keep it in check.
    Here, and it took much less than 12 minutes. Reading>videos.
  7. Dragon1-1's post in Weight was marked as the answer   
    For the first part, it's probably rounding error. DCS is made by an European company, so internal values are metric. One kg is about 2 pounds, so you can expect errors of that magnitude when things start to add up. Basically, what the system shows you as "4lbs" may internally be something like 1.67kg, which, when multiplied by two, will give you 3.34kg, which would be shown as 7lbs. So you appear to lose a pound somewhere, and depending on the rounding method used, those errors may accumulate.
    Second part looks like a genuine bug.
×
×
  • Create New...