Rainmaker

Sorry. That was related to my previous post. Thats a -15E cockpit.

edit: Here lies the answer. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p002709.pdf First page, second paragraph. -18 was apparently changed during development.

While I can’t speak directly on the -18, the comparisons made to the -15 in that context are incorrect. The F-15 doesn’t need displacement to react. It literally has a ‘stick force sensor’ located at the base of the stick. It does what the name would insinuate that it does, it senses force pressure put on the stick to drive the CAS inputs to the flight controls. You can freeze that stick entirely and still have flight control movement. Stick displacement drives cables which run the actuators (CAS on or off), CAS inputs are driven by stick force in the -15. The two are not really comparable. The F-18, although I do not know exactly how it is integrated, also has a SFS at the stick grip base. Why? No idea if it uses positional sensors.

So, starting to get in the weeds here and a bit more in depth than the OP was asking but... My question with that topic is whether the -18 has a pitch ratio function as the -15 does. By design, the -15 adjusts itself so the same stick pressure gives you the same G regardless of things like speed, etc....until you get slow enough where you really can’t meet the request by the pilot. That’s one of the bigger things missing with the -15’s FM, and I don’t know if the -18 is also missing this as I don’t know if they are supposed to function in the same manner. The above gives the pilot a a good source of feedback to know where to pit the stick in order to command X amount of G regardless of where he/she is in the flight envelope, so you don’t have to steadily pull the stick back until you get what you want. The -18 is a bit different in that is has a limiter, but they could still be designed that way...or not. The books available really don’t go that deep in the weeds on it, but the above that you are mentioning kind of hints towards it. Someone with personal knowledge of the -18’s stuff may be able to clear that one up. I can only speculate based on the two airframes sharing some similarities already.

Yes and no. CAS is less dependent on actual stick movement. It’s using force sensors to translate the inputs. Reading a -1, NOTOPS, etc is a bit different than translating it to what is actually happening.

Everyone always associates force sensing to the F-16 because of the reduced movement vs other center stick jets. The reality is, many of them use relatively the same concept to talk to the flight control computers.

That’s not correct. The stick moves, so does the the F-15’s...and they both have a stick force sensor (base of the stick) that translates force pressure to the CAS computers and into flight control movements. It’s a typical MD/Boeing design.

A little bit of an apples vs oranges here IMO. Comparing the two equally is rather difficult. Completely different aspect having a much greater temp scale to variate from looking down a tank sight vs 20K looking directly down at the ground. A lot of times at much bigger ranges that would effectively be OTH from a ground-ground perspective. Couple that with dedicated power requirements, a pod that has to work when it’s -40* F, and a host of other fielding requirements. There is Gen 1 LANTIRN footage out there from ODS to Allied Force, you’ll see that it was nowhere near as good as you are wanting it to have been. The F-117 was probably one of the better iterations, and it was a dedicated system, installed in the jet, with a huge amount of priority devoted to it as it was the only true way for it to get bombs on target. It still wasn’t ‘great’, although ‘great’ for it’s time. The second gen pods that we went to were a huge leap in performance over the original.

That would be the opposite of what you should do if it’s modeled correctly.

You just need to change the aircraft type and fly from the editor. Not ‘ideal’ by any means but it is a workaround to be able to fly them for now. Tried it with the Red Flag campaign and appeared to work fine.

Don't know what to tell you about 'other planes' http://www.navybmr.com/study%20material/14313a/14313A_ch1.pdf FMU-139 "... four functioning delay settings (10, 25, and 60 milliseconds, and instantaneous)" "...functioning delay must be set during weapon assembly" See attached pic. That center plug between the two lugs is your arming wire. Only one wire in that case. EDIT: Looking further into it, apparently the Navy has a secondary option of a Mk-22 initiator. Perhaps your 'other aircraft' is referring to navy-type aircraft? Apparently this offers 'pilot-selectable' options via a coax cable. Not and Air Force thing that I've ever heard of so perhaps this is your 'difference' between the two? https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/musing/understanding-the-fmu-139-and-its-employment-options/

That would be something that’s Hard mounted in the bomb, you either have the fuze set to delay or you don’t. I guess they ‘could’ fudge that in the same way the laser code is, but it apparently isn’t. N/T regulates which wires are pulled on release. In the case of a GBU, IIRC, the nose fuse arms the seeker and the tail pulls either the fins or the arming wire lanyard. In either case, not pulling all the lanyards would be a bad thing in terms of having an operable bomb. There are some weapons dudes around here that can correct anything that I may have gotten wrong on the above.

You select ‘latch’ under the pod options menu. Will allow you to Depress the NWS key once and have laser continuously fire. When in doubt, Wags has a youtube video on it.

Not sure if it’s included in the A-10 software, but GIMB ROLL should be bracketed with <> arrows which denote which way you need to roll in order to clear the advisory. Could be a ‘wish list thing’ but not sure if there is intent to model that or not. Exists in other jets, not sure about this one.

Never counted the actual degrees of allowed roll in game, but reducing the amount or roll has much to do with the person behind the aircraft controls as it does with the pod.

Has to do with roll limits on the head, before it basically has to unwind itself by reversing roll in the opposite direct. Yes, it is a real thing

Use CCRP without designation. With function like delayed CCIP and cue up pipper higher in the HUD. Just requires you to consent to release and hold pickle through bomb release.

Blanking is using head limits to ‘blank’ the HMD when it sees head position focused within the cockpit. The ‘occlusion’ you are talking about has to do with symbology priorities, which tells the system what to draw and what not to draw when symbols overlap. In this case, blanking is what has the effect of removing or displaying HMD symbols, not occlusion.

Occlusion and blanking are two different things...which I think is being misinterpreted here.

Hopefully some sort of DTC stuff is around the corner. I know it was pitched what seemed like 2+ years ago. Or at least a ‘cockpit save’ option as the customization is getting pretty far in the weeds with many aircraft. I understand the complexity as each aircraft has it’s own nuances to program...but even a text file to exit would go a long way. If you didn’t know, you can press and hold the page OSBs and it will take you to the programming page. Select a new page then press the page you want to replace. An annoyance to do that every time, but for now, you can at least return it to how you would like.

Reading things on paper and reality are often not the same. We used to run the pod on the ground all the time. That goes for LITENING and SNIPER too. May doesn’t mean can’t or won’t.

The rocket doesn’t ‘talk’ to the jet in any way so why would that be surprising? No different than a GBU-12 for example.

Just gee-wiz info but to put it in better prospective for understanding. Nozzles have dive and con seals. Not something you notice with engines that have the outter fairings installed, but look at something like an eagle motor that has the seals exposed and it’s easier to understand.

The 4-tube gogs were cleared years ago for use. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a430243.pdf Our guys in the operational units had them back in the 05-07 timeframe and it was basically a user preference kind of thing although they were limited in numbers so I dunno how the ops folks chose to rack and stack who could use them and who had to take a number. General consensus from the guys I asked about it was that they were better, but there were also folks walking into debrief with busted bridges on their nose where they tended to come down under G. Not the most ideal thing to have happen during low-levels through the mountains, etc. Apparently the retention system was not as good with dealing with the additional weight. They were also quite a bit larger, both in the event you wanted to stow them up or somewhere in the cockpit. Saw a decent number of back seaters wear them, front seaters mainly stuck to the 2-barrel versions. Not sure whether or not the AFE folks still even have them for issue or not if the crew guys wanted them or if they simply just got turned in and dropped all together.