Rainmaker

The CFTs add a little over 9K in total fuel. Typical min for a full load with CFTs is 22.5K

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.

I speak F-15 very fluently, and have no idea what those terms are you used.

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.

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.

Its basically no different than the C you have already as an FC3 aircraft. Under the hood, the CAS system is digital which gives it a little better reaction to inputs and it’s easier for itself to diagnose problems. From a flying perspective, you should expect the same handling characteristics for the most part, and the addition of a few small things that arent modeled.

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.

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.

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.

You are putting yourself wayyyy too high on the pedestal.

Have you seen code before? It’s a pretty laborious task to take on.

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.

Opposite. Range without bearing, unless you are dealing with large aircraft that have the onboard equipment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Short answer...it's not an engine limitation.

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.

it’s not the weight, it’s the drag. CFT racks are painfully draggy.

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.

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.

I get your point completely...and I am not against the idea of doing such things (again, no dog in the fight)...it’s just the supporting elements that you guys have been using is not really suitable at all for the argument. The instances of crashes, the charts, etc...are not related to the stance you are trying to give support to.

Dude, I’m an F-15 maintenance person by trade. Jets were physically found to have structural defects. There were others found that might have gone years/decades before any catastrophic failure happened. It was a combination of a lot of things that attributed to those. I was intimately involved in those inspections personally as I was part of the cadre that tore jets apart to inspect them. You are using instances without context. Again, you are implementing a line for something on a chart that was never intended to be used that way. You are trying to draw a line in the sand where there isn’t one. You are using the wrong charts and the wrong books for that.