Jump to content

Rainmaker

Members
  • Posts

    1017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rainmaker

  1. I would tend to believe it isnt. There are aircraft that operate in this way, the -15E comes to mind. Also an MD/Boeing design. Believe the A-10 does as well. The designation can be independent from the bomb computing.
  2. The CFTs add a little over 9K in total fuel. Typical min for a full load with CFTs is 22.5K
  3. Well…that sounds like one of the most obscure things one would find on the internet. In terms of simulation though, it really doesn't matter. Going from a MPDP/CC to the ADCP didnt greatly change anything out of the gate. No new wizz-bang things that would be apparent to anyone in a one vs the other scenario.
  4. I speak F-15 very fluently, and have no idea what those terms are you used.
  5. Realistically, having it on or off shouldnt matter as far as the light is concerned. The detection probe is forward in the intake, and is just a probe that sits there and monitors ice buildup.
  6. I’m speaking of control authority and how CAS moves surfaces. Nothing to do with turn performance, etc. A FBW system interacts differently as there is no stick and surface direct interaction.
  7. Your viewing of the ‘real’ HUD image is distorted. The is a picture taken with the camera close to the HUD. That’s exactly what it’s supposed to do. HUD symbology will change with FOV in order to maintain focus. There is nothing wrong with the DCS implementation, you are misinterpreting what the real HUD looks like.
  8. This is pretty much interchangeable. Stick travel per G is still a thing in the actual aircraft as well. The feel springs are there so that the stick force increases as positional displacement increases.
  9. Cant speak for DCS as I havent messed around with the C enough lately, specially in the transonic area. But…with respect to the real thing, it is a real thing. The CAS system is built to maintain a loaded G per stick position. In certain envelope areas, it’s a lot easier to apply the stick you think will give you X, and the result being something different. The details of how that all happen and the why are well above my personal knowledge…just know that it is for sure an IRL thing. It’s commonly where the IRL over-G occurrences happen.
  10. Have you seen code before? It’s a pretty laborious task to take on.
  11. I would say that’s a pretty fair assessment. The updates to the other aircraft that have continued to happen haven’t coded themselves. When you have to lend support to fixing pop-up bugs and adding mew stuff to aircraft already released, the time and the people have to come from somewhere. ED has done much of the same with all their aircraft in development so no difference.
  12. Opposite. Range without bearing, unless you are dealing with large aircraft that have the onboard equipment.
  13. I may be proven wrong, but I have yet to see a case where a SME has disagreed with an EM diagram, and said it’s wrong. What I have seen is a lot of comments on parts of the envelope that are not in any covered by an EM chart. Loaded acceleration, non-level turns, role rates at particular alphas, etc, etc, etc. That is all Primarily a SME area, that sense/ability comes from performance /time in the real thing. The time spent inside the window of an EM diagram is basically nil...it’s all the other stuff that matters that an EM chart is never going to give you.
  14. If many understood the charts as well as they think they actually do, then they would understand that EM diagrams that are published in the flight manuals describe very limited/very targeted sliver of the actual flight model. They are max performance charts, done to specific profiles, etc. That’s it. You actually need SME support for about the other 99% of it because the charts in no way cover those aspects. A lot of you have seen SMEs comment on are those parts, which are not covered...but again, it’s the typical norm to come to a forum and see those who have never done the task challenge the opinions of those who ACTUALLY have. And fun fact: those charts CAN have inaccuracies.
  15. When you want to kick rudders and not move the nose wheel. This more likely to happen in the parking spot, doing flight control warmups before doing a preflight BIT as an example. As is one of my previous posts above, the real jet has a hydraulic dampener in place to soften the inputs. To what degree DCS models that and how it compares in relation to the real thing I’m not sure as I dont have any personal experiences there to go off of. But, it could be likely that the speed of the wheel is a bit higher than what the real jet has...but that’s speculation on my part so I’m not going to stand on a pedestal and claim that it’s inaccurate.
  16. Nose wheel shimmy is certainly a real thing. That’s why you now see a shimmy dampener imstalled on the real jets. Not procedural for you to hold the switch on takeoff so cant speak to expectations on the real jet.
  17. Yes, that is true. Whether that was a design request or just how McD built it on their own I have no idea. From a practical sense, for ground ops though, it doesnt make a ton of sense to have it off in most cases when you think about it. So although its different, there is some validity to its design. As far as takeoff sensitivity, the system does have a dampener built in to slow movement to allow for refined control. How well DCS compares to a real jet, I dont have a whole lot of input in that area as I’ve never flown the real thing, only sat in the seat at 0 knots and 1 g.
  18. It’s not strange, it’s correct. Two buttons in an eagle for NWS, the paddle and pinky switch. The paddle disables NWS only while held and the pinky switch enables steering to go from the 15-30* normal range to a 45* limit. There is no on/off toggle for NWS in the -15 like there is in a -16/-18, etc. You wont be towing a jet around with hydro pressure enabled. It’s for use of the rudder pedals without engaging the nose wheel with movement of the rudders. It removes the centering pressure from the unit to allow the wheel to move past the normal steering limit, but it’s not normally going to be used for that.
  19. I was just clarifying the engine wasn’t the limitation here. The jet is built to go fast, the variable inlets are built to help/protect the motor. To my knowledge, down low, it’s speed limited due to air friction/heat, more specifically to the canopy, etc. same as about every other US fighter. Just like the whole G tolerance debate, it’s not saying that something negative will happen, it’s just a manufacturing limit imposted to protect the integrity of the airframe. Can/can’t do something vs should/shouldn’t are different applications here.
  20. Short answer...it's not an engine limitation.
  21. Sure, it’s both...but the weight is not nearly as comparable of a factor as the drag is. You lose way more due to drag than you do from the additional weight. You can fly both configs at the same gross, but there will be a substantial difference from the additional drag of one vs the other.
  22. it’s not the weight, it’s the drag. CFT racks are painfully draggy.
  23. Just stop entertaining the folks that continuously say the exact same stuff over and over when it’s clear they have never actually taken five minutes to use google. Links are all over this thread already.
  24. The first 2, IIRC, were due to water intrusion. The third was the fault of the aircrew performing a bad escape maneuver with an improper weapons config. Zero to do with the aircraft itself. You are still way off.
×
×
  • Create New...