effte

Map, compass and clock, and then a few gadgets thrown in to verify the performance of the primary nav system... ;)

Nope. TACAN and VOR are two different animals. The DME part, if present, is the same though. A VOR can be colocated with a TACAN, creating a VORTAC.

While I do hope that the LASTE takes into account the INS computed winds at your current altitude, if there are layered winds it needs to have them manually entered. You could record the winds during climbout. It will probably will be well in the ballpark unless you plan on missions long enough to require aerial refuelling, or you would (more likely) have them briefed from either a weather flight or a met balloon. That being said, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Just tried it, and my bombs landed in pretty much the same area regardless of whether I had winds in the LASTE or not - with layered winds.

As the coordinates are printed next to the NDBs in the charts I have, that's a good way to fly the non-precision approaches and full procedures. I'll punch them in as waypoints as required. In fact, AFAIK todays area navigation capable aircraft tend to use their own nav systems to calculate the ADF indications anyway when using NDBs. I can see why, especially when there are thunderstorms around... :) Of course you are still supposed to check your raw data... as word has it one unfortunate B744 captain didn't do ten years or so ago when electing to hold at an NDB which wasn't on the air, and NOTAMed as such. Apparently caused a bit of a stir. :D

The HUD symbology is supposed to cover a fixed angle. E g the pipper size is defined as a diameter of a number of mils. It should always be the same size compared to the background - projected on infinity. If you managed to squeeze it onto the combiner as seen from further away, you'd either change the angular size of the reticle or make the reticle larger, compared to the rest of the symbology. The heading tape would either display fewer degrees or grow bigger, compared to everything else. Etc etc etc.

35 knots where? Sounds like the demonstrated crosswind component. If you start scratching missions due to 35 knots at altitude (where it matters for bombing), you're going to have lots of time on the ground. :)

You should see 126 deg mag on the HSI at Batumi. When you have an INS feeding the HSI, it typically looks in a database to find the mag var in order to present the mag heading. The true runway heading at Batumi is 131 degrees. Verified through checking coordinates. The error is not in the terrain but somewhere in the systems. Castle: Reading the DCS manual, yes, the EGI seems to feed the HSI unless you deliberately switch it to HARS. I only had the A model manual when posting before.

1) Runway HEADINGS are magnetic. 2) The HSI should run off a gyro corrected to magnetic from a flux gate valve - a sensor registering the magnetic field. Edit: Confirmed from docs. Runs off the HARS and a remote compass sensor. 3) Batumi is correctly aligned @ 131 deg true. 4) Mag var is 5E, so you should see 126 on the HSI. 5) Last I checked, the HSI said 121 or so when lined up at Batumi. Conclusion: DCS heading reference system broken, subtracting mag var twice. I think this has been acknowledged by ED. The course selector is not a factor here.

Now, that's a very interesting issue I hadn't thought about! GG314304 represents a square centered on GG31453045 Hence, it would be logical for the TGP to slew to GG31453045 when you tell it to slew to GG314304. However, it doesn't. Rather, it slews to GG31403040, or the SW corner of the square GG314304. I need to borrow an A-10C to check what it does in real life. Anyone got a spare one they're not using at the moment? ;) Cheers, /Fred

Joking aside, if you have it in writing (for public release) that the USAF mandates explicitly stating the grid zone, you should make the reference available to ED. If that's the case, the DCS JTAC needs to be updated.

So, when I say they are not the same it is "simply wrong!", but they are only "basically the same". Finally, the two systems which are apparently the same can be compared? Hmmm.... :smartass: :D Not convinced? What's the latitude limits of UTM? What are the latitude limits of MGRS? Is UPS and MGRS the same? ;) Then there's the whole ellipsoid deal as well, not sure if UTM and MGRS have always agreed there... but these days, both are based on WGS84 to the best of my knowledge. Happy to be corrected there though - I never use either in situations where it matters, so I haven't bothered to check facts. In my army, it's OK to drop the grid zone if it can not in any way cause misunderstandings. That essentially means having pre-briefed the grid zone in effect, and everything happening exclusively in that one pre-briefed grid zone. Amen to professional disagreement. However, there's this little publication from the NGA. Check §3.5, beginning "all elements of a grid reference need not be used". You can in fact drop the square designator as well, if deemed appropriate and safe. :) Cheers, Fred

Add a key for chocks on/off, and a text prompt acknowledging the command. Simplest hand gesture in the book. No intercom required. :)

The included mission Smerch hunt is not as daunting as it may seem at first.

Drag index and performance docs for the A model.

Larger wing area and significantly longer moment arm for the ailerons. Buzpilot, drag index, OAT and gross weight when testing? Edit: A model dash one (Wikipedia data also for A model) gives a 44,000 ft service ceiling at DI -4, GW 25k lbm and ISA-20. At ISA, you're down to 42,500. If the -1 and Wikipedia don't agree, I know which source I'd trust. On the C model, you have various bits and pieces added, such as the Pave Penny, GPS antenna and missile launch detectors, all adding drag and reducing ceiling. Bringing out the CR-3 to use the parts of it I don't normally use (i e, if I miscalculate you have been warned): At 42,500 you should be at around 160 KIAS (-1 figure). Assuming 160 KCAS, as I couldn't find an altimeter correction chart, with OAT around -55 degrees centigrade (standard atm.) the resulting Mach would be approximately .6 and TAS around 340.

While I'm normally opposed to the 'credentials race', I guess some background is relevant here. Aero engineer flying spam cans, having flown gliders, mission crew. Been working on airliners, fast jets etc and of course taken the opportunity to get some sim time (big sims) on various aircraft over the years. Obviously never been near getting to fly an A-10. For what it is worth, DCS:A-10C is one of very few PC simulators where I have not found any major gripes regarding the flight model. Love it. I do feel that losing a wing might just have a slightly more significant effect than what we are seeing though, but that's feeling - not fact. :)

Welcome to the world of simulated flying. TIR is the thing which brings you into the simulator rather than looking at it from the outside - it's that good. I bought the TrackClip Pro with my TIR 5 when going from TIR 3. Tried it, but ended up going back to the basic ballcap clip. Less of a hassle, especially if you are not wearing headphones all the time when flying.

Genuine research, with Real Experts found on the interwebs, some of which have both worn funky hats and been in A-10 cockpits! ;)

Yes, there is. Target elevation + 10,000 feet and you'll be at 10,000 AGL... ;) Edit: 10,000 AGL at the target, that is. Radar altitude would screw you up worse than simply flying 10k MSL half of the time anyway. Remember, it is the altitude above ground right where you are at. A mountain will decrease your radalt severely. It is also a lobe, and the highest (i e closest) point within that lobe is what you will get a reading to. Oh, I guess this is yet another argument for putting the waypoints at ground level rather than at flight altitude. ;) Cheers, Fred

You have a clock right there on the dash. :) 1 knot = 1 nm per hour. To fly 50 miles at 250 knots you will need 50/250 hours, or 50/250*60 minutes. Usually you'll be able to get close enough just doing the rough calculation in your head. You can also get one of these and make it ded simple (pun intentional). :) Cheers, Fred

Nope, not anymore. Now you have to follow the Book. The procedure is in the checklist in the manual. Basically follow the video guide, going to the inventory to reselect the right GBU for the station. Then you also have to go to the STAT page, power off the pylon and finally return power to the pylon. Once that is done your GBU is alive and healthy again. Cheers, Fred

:thumbup: That's the point I was getting at, before I got fed up with the thread. I don't think you are supposed to use the HUD as primary reference during normal flight. It is primarily a gunsight, even if it has a lot of bells and whistles. The dash one even explicitly states not to use the HUD speed readout as primary speed reference during takeoff. ED had to choose. Either a default view position enabling use of the HUD, or a more relaxed posture where you won't be able to see all of the HUD. Which would create the most upset posts and claims for money back in this forum? I think they chose wisely. Perhaps an Il-2 solution, with two head positions, could be the thing. Whether the eye point as used for the HUD is correct or not I do not know, but I outlined how to test it above. Still haven't seen it done. Volunteers?

You are essentially telling the systems to use the digital terrain model for ground elevation when doing the ballistics for the gun, rather than to use the waypoint elevation which is way off. Another reason to use target elevations for mission waypoints, rather than planned flight altitudes.

You and me both. ED?

Where can I read more about these problems with large Maverick loads? Searching tends to give a tad too many hits... :) Cheers, Fred