Rainmaker

Love to know where you are hearing all this. 32 units is not 25* BTW.

Firstly, I didnt comment in any way on the removal of them for flight. Not sure how you are even reaching that kind of conclusion. My previous comments on the subject are the exact opposite of whatever conclusion you somehow drew from that Secondly, hard points are not what I am referring to.

I am glad you are trying to school me on CFTs, only spent 17 years working the bird. The interfaces are NOT part of the CFT either, they are on the aircraft side. And some of THAT isnt there anymore. I’m fully aware of what a CFT is and isnt. I’m fully aware of what components are on the CFTs and what isnt. I’m fully aware that the part numbers of CFTs have changed 3 times in the last two decades.

that’s a big ol negative. Internals arent the same and never have been. fast packs were always considered CFTs. The FAST portion is just a dressy name. The E CFTs, however, are quite a bit different internally.

Fast Packs and CFTs are two different things. They were never the same thing.

Oh, i think I get what you mean. To answer the last part, yes. I believe that is already displayed in some of the tutorial videos that Notso has already done. Or someone has done. There has been rear seat displays shown at some point.

The only real restriction on the -15E as far as display selection goes is that the AG radar page cannot be selected on an MPCD as the page is incompatible with color displays. Other than that, you are free to set them up as you wish with the exception of a few select modes where certain displays are hard-coded to display.

You are going to have to expand on what you mean but… Displays between front and rear are independent as far as what is chosen to be displayed

JTIDS and FDL really arent the same thing. JTIDS was tanked, never fleet integrated, and there was nothing until FDL was integrated much later down the road. The JTIDS cockpit hardware was repurposed but the guts of the system are not really close at all.

@KlarSnow After the lengthy discussion on discord, I went and did some more playing around with this. I have some hypothetical thoughts on this I want your opinion on. To the first point. Take a look at the awful depiction that I attached. I think this is where you are seeing the CAS on/CAS off differences between the two. As I tried to convey on discord, I think we are faced with some shortcomings due to everything being measured by force in the real jet vs us using stick position. Same stick position equals different stick force between CAS on/off due to that anti-stall inhibitor. We hold the same stick, but it's seen as you were providing more force to hold the same stick pos, even though we are not when sitting at our PCs. The PRCA is going to see this as you wanting more pitch/pitch rate with CAS on vs CAS off due to that. It's not related to CAS and it's pitch authority, it's do to the mech side seeing more force because of the inhibitor putting more force on the stick to stay in the same place. "Heavier stick", but we can't feel heavier. When I went full aft stick CAS on/off, I didn't see any difference between the two...but that kind makes sense as you are max out, CAS can't give you more, etc. When I was partial stick, I saw the alpha spikes you saw but I believe that can be explained by the attached photo and what it's interpreting. To the second point. I think if this is an issue, it's a PTC/mech scheduling issue, maybe based on alpha. Even though it might appear to be better on the mech only side, I'm wondering if that is masking itself. I'm going to look around to see if I can find some papers, but I'm thinking that the PTC may make adjustments to the stab movement based on alpha rates that perhaps we don't have. That perhaps might be something, that even know you deliver more force to the stick, the PTC may ignore the command to drive the stabs for more pitch/pitch rate since you are beyond the point of achievable G anyway. This is where some input regarding what happens relative to stick pos in the real jet is probably invaluable, but that's info/experience I can't provide. If X stick pos is required to create X low speed flying quality, or stall, or not stall...I'm useless in that regard as far as what should and shouldn't be right. Edit: Just to get ahead of someone thinking I posted something not allowed, that stick force graph is from the NASA doc I posted above.

They are dedicated to each side. They wont cross center.

Dunno if its still the case, but you should be able to disable the home fuel advisory by setting the FUEL page waypoint to 99. The problem used to be, you couldnt change it back off of the ‘99’ value, but in tour case, not that big of a deal.

Nav FLIR and TFR are relative to the same pod. Same goes for any jet that pod was incorporated in to. Top half is the FINS which houses the FLIR and bottom is the TFR that houses the antennae. And yes, the jets are able to navigate around most interference problems by timing out things.

Klar, to add to your original post, I’m almost under the assumption that the pitch CAS is working backwards. The jet AoA limits with CAS off, but the stall inhibitor, is pitch CAS related as its nulling the stabs through CAS. Shouldnt even be possible with CAS off, right? Almost like, when its off it’s on.

Looking at your video again, what it really shouldn't be doing IMO is climbing during initial accel. The water line holds steady and the VV raises and the jet climbs. It should be taking stab trim out there at that point and relaxing the nose down.

Again, transient maneuvers. That’s not to mean 200-600knts and back again.

PTC moves stabs. No stick input equals 1G. The system is designed to hold the velocity vector over transient changes, but not across all regimes. It alleviates trimming constantly, but it doesnt operate like a att hold mode. Over certain alpha, nose gets heavy (you can read the nasa paper I posted). Above about 23 alpha, the system actually stops commanding 1 G. There are things about the current PTC actions that I dont particularly think are quite right, but that’s different from me saying its a bug.

I watched the video. The PTC has travel limits. And, as above, the jet has an anti-stall inhibiter that is AoA based. When it gets to certain limits, the nose up pitch authority is reduced, so yes, the flight path marker will drop as airspeed continues to reduce as there is no longer as much pitch-up authority given to the stabs. The jet will not keep driving the nose up to a stall, that is the purpose of that system. That's why, as Klar pointed out above, the stick force for AoA is increased as speed drops below the commanded G capability of the airplane.

Not sure if I am understanding exactly what you are discussing, but that is the function of the PTC. PTC will drive to maintain 1G using the stabs, so the nose will move as a result. That's how the pitch trim works. The system is G commanded to 1 G with no stick inputs. In addition, there is 'anti-stall' features that are AoA dependent, which is what Klar was discussing above, which change the amount of available pitch travel.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87873main_H-914.pdf

Dude, I put the guy on ignore a year ago. It’ll save you some headaches.

The extra person, or AI, basically adds to but doesn't take away from is all I’m saying. It’s like there is some sort of concern that there may not be an AI. If there isn’t, a single person can still accomplish everything. You wont be system restricted and ‘can’t do this’ or ‘can’t do that’ is what I’m saying.

Single player would be able to hop between seats, so not sure exactly what the cause for concern here is. You jump seats, flip a switch, jump back. If you wanna hang out back there for a bit, the rear seat should he able to fly too. Not a big deal at all. The switches that are back there are not labor intensive. You turn stuff on at startup or during the fence, turn it off on the way home.

Not entirely true. It isn’t normal to disengage steering for takeoff purposes, but you use the paddle any time you want to move rudders without moving the nosewheel, IE flight control warmups. The real jets steering is ‘dampened’, so its likely the C’s implementation is likely too fast, but I have no experience taxiing a jet so lack accurate feedback to give there.

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.