Ivandrov

Yeah, It's just a commercial product taken off the shelf and added into the cockpit. There's likely not a universal military standard as to what specific model of GPS system you will find. Maybe at the most they've narrowed down a family or brand of systems to install or general recommendations based on what mounting brackets have been made for them, (Sometimes custom jobs within squadrons)

Computer IP is useful for some more advanced lofting where you need to designate and release before you gain sight of the target. Like from behind a mountain. Effective with both LGB's and CBU's against SAM sites for instance.

The stick on the ground at zero airspeed will move very fast and hit stick traverse limits while adjusting the trim. But, that's not an indication of the actual trim adjustment limit. Don't look at the stick, just look at the gauge and continue holding the trim until you get to the desired setting.

Might not actually be doing anything wrong here, the INS is not really accurate enough for better accuracy than, "Well, I can see the target in the TCS at least." Although, just in case. The IP point is in fact in DDM single digit. So, yes, kind of 5 digits, but it's a decimal off of the minutes. The offset distance is expressed in thousandths of a NM. So could be something like 0.003 NM The altitude is an altitude delta from the altitude of the IP. So you need to enter not only the IP's altitude in the IP but also the difference in altitude to the actual target in the IP-TO-TGT. This also might have been one of the instances where you needed to use true heading for the bearing rather than Magnetic. I don't quite remember.

Almost any fighter will have reduced authority to pull negative G's. They are more dangerous to the human body, and pulling back on the stick takes better advantage of the wing designs. We're also coming into the era of plane designs that are inherently unstable for increased maneuvering ability so that probably has to do with why the control authority is limited in negative G.

Huge hit to money spent elsewhere, probably. Especially if we're talking post cold-war where the mindset became reducing the sizes and budgeting to military. There's certainly a priority list when it comes to this stuff and trying to convince people to upgrade old airframes when their first thought in their heads is, "Man, this thing is old, gotta find a replacement." Is extremely difficult.

Well, we can already tell that this is going to be at least somewhat the case. The english cockpit that Wags is using is labeled Miles on the HSI at the least. Although the HUD and HSI units look identical.

You're just saying it was marked on the map. Do you know if it was actually setup and radiating? Possibly destroyed? Contention from what I remember lets players place these things. Perhaps the player chose a bad spot and the EWR is terran masking? Do you know what specific unit it was?

I'll talk mostly within the scope of the F-4E. But, usually the primary reason is money. To be clear. The APQ-120 was actually upgraded, up to a v9, I believe. But, given a certain budget, you can spend that money upgrading old airframes to fit the new radars (It's not just a matter of swapping dishes, often the radar is designed to fit the airframe not only in terms of size but things like power draw, and the weapons control systems) or you can just shove the new tech into a new airframe. Of course, you have to realize that these are old airframes that might be reaching retirement anyway, with increasing maintenance costs. The ones who continued to update the old airframes are usually the ones that can't really confidently meet the upfront cost of new ones. So, you're only left with the option of upgrade.

Not talking about the RWR tones, talking about the Shrike seeker tone and the Director bars on the ADI. It very much pulses along as you get painted by the Lobes. The pulsing sounds nothing like the RWR New Guy Audio. Different tone quality between the Shrike Seeker and the RWR for the Dog Ear as well at least.

It tracks when it is illuminated by the radar and stops tracking when it isn't. You can see that if you follow the missile in. The guidance kind of pulses on and off. You can also see/hear it before firing, the director bars and the tone you hear also kind of pulse.

Both the HUD and the VDI have separate ILS/ACL switches.

It doesn't seem to occur if you just extend and retract in the air, I don't think it's a hydraulic pressure issue, so I would be very interested in what is going on if it's not wear and tear. The actual flight manual doesn't seem to say anything about it.

The gear extension and retraction is powered by the utility pressure circuit. You can check the gauge on the pedestal to see what it's status is whenever the generators are connected. Normally it seems to load the utility circuit down to about 2500 psi from about 3000 with a reference aircraft. I'm not sure about the 2nd part. It sounds like even good touch-and-goes cause enough wear to slow down the gear extension and retraction.

Well, I tried the no fuel engine malfunction as well and the engine rpm gauges in the plane were still reading an engine RPM, about 20-30% at 300 knots. ChatGPT is not likely to help you here all that much. It's safe to say to that, it is likely that you were in fact windmilling and that provided enough hydraulic pressure until you finally slowed down on the runway since that is when your flight controls stopped working.

So, first of all, the hydraulic pressure gauges require generator power to function. You can test this by turning off both generators in flight and the hydraulic gauges will drop to zero despite the engines still being on and providing hydraulic pressure. The Gens don't provide enough voltage while just windmilling and so the pressure reading also drops to zero. There's an electrically driven pump that is supposed to provide some hydraulic pressure to the PC-1 side of the Stabilator in the event that hydraulic pressure drops below about 1000 psi. Even then, if you are in the air, it is likely the engines are windmilling and providing some hydraulic pressure through that avenue as well. Rudder control is still possible even without hydraulic pressure.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. None of the varients will have contrast locking behavior either, they snap to the center of any defined object in the world, with some notable exceptions.

The loss of lock is not. You can very much lock onto targets through clouds.

Yeah, can't really say I am having any problems with them. Point the seeker at the bad guy, TMS up, shoot.

It does matter because you won't be able to see the radar signal and it's source if you aren't in the lobe and being painted by it. A bit like how your RWR requires that the radar paint you before it knows that it is there and what direction the signal is coming from.

It does not track the beam itself, it tracks the source. The main lobe is the area that the primary radar signal travels through and the shrike will track the emitting source based on look angle. It will cross into the main lobe eventually. The loft takes it higher than the beam usually anyway.

Not technically a beam rider. It just tracks an emitting radar by its main lobe only. The radar has to illuminate the Shrike's seeker with the Main Lobe for the Shrike to track. This means that my attack profile usually involves a split-s. Remain in line with the axis you fired on.

That loadout works for me. A guess based on what you are describing and the setup of the mission that you provided, is that you are leaving the weapon selector knob in TV mode which inhibits all air-to-air munitions release. The trigger is used for the Maverick in this mode. When you air-start with a Maverick, the Weapon Selector starts in the TV mode so that the Gyros in the Mav are spun up and ready to go.

Tried loading your mission but I don't have the WWII assets pack. Tried replicating your first loadout and was able to fire the gun, and missiles. Your 2nd picture does not load for me.

Well, IRL pilots didn't like it much either for the same reason. The radar is not powerful enough to make the same kinds of images the F-15E is capable of.