Rainmaker

I know this is trivial, bit just throwing it out there. The ANG still falls under the USAF. The money pot is a little different, as well as some nuances to the command structure...but they are not as seperate as what is being kind of inferred here. Again, not that big of a deal, I just know some don’t quite understand where the commonalities/differences lie.

The pod should be able to do both. If you cannot currently do it, not sure if it’s by design that they are not incorporating the capability or it’s just because the pod interface is in such early stages.

Just my opinion but... I know a bunch a folks in the maintenance community that have hit 9G, or really close to. I can't actually think of anyone off the top of my head that has passed out. It's pretty much a right of passage for those that are lucky enough to get a ride. I'm sure Mover or someone that has been sitting front seat could spit out some sort of average of those that can get there and ones that don't...I really have no idea. I've also known a few to basically puke on takeoff and force guys to burn gas for an hour just to land. I don't "know" this as fact, but I would say the suite has a pretty big influence on that. By the time you get to 4-5G, it's on you pretty good, and I dare say, it might be one of the more uncomfortable parts of getting a ride, specially the part that sits right across your bladder. With that being said, I think there's a lot more factors at play than just the G. Not that hard, in my opinion, to know it's coming, tense everything up, look straight forward as a passenger, and just concentrate on not loosing it. It would be completely different to hold that, concentrate, fly the jet, keep your eyes on someone else, and not loose it. I got to a bit over 7 on my ride (different jet, tanks..bit of a slug) before we were on the beeper and it just wouldn't maintain any more. No tunnel vision, no color loss...just a lot of straining and not the most comfortable experience between the G and the suit. I also flew most of that with my mask off my face. Sure, he could have snapped on 9G just to say we got there, but he also could have over-G'd, broke the jet, and we may have had to go home early too. I ended up with a 1.3, so I'll take that and be perfectly happy. It hurts, I'll attest to that, but it wasn't that awful. What was awful was only doing 4-5G in defensive BFM doing gun jinks. That probably hurt worse than the sustained pull, and there's just absolutely no way I would have been able to actually look over my shoulder and do what these guys do on a daily basis...not happening. I also bought into that "well, 4Gs is the same as a roller coaster". Like hell it is :) . The .5 seconds you might be there on a rollar coaster is no comparison to being there for 10 seconds.

The -15s are not block dependent, they are location dependent. The tails with 220s vs 229s are not separated out by block, it’s based off base/unit assignment.

To be fair and reach back to your original post... “But if before takeoff the pilot reaches into the rear cockpit and turns on the tpod, laser, TEWS, and CMD, then he can do pretty much all by himself. But it gets real busy!” Is basically a complete falsehood on reality. It is in no way that easy. Following up a with a “know this because of years of hands-on experience” is apparently not true either. A bit of embellishment on your part? A sim is not the real thing, so that doesn’t come across to me as “experience” or qualify on to be a SME. Your opinion obviously may differ. Sure, I could fire both motors (you’ll be lucky to get avionics power-up to even start due to single engine avionics shutdown), climb back on the canopy sill, and cycle back and forth until all the gizmos are powered up. Not practical, or realistic, and far from “all you need to do is...” as you original post would make it appear. This is how the rumor mills get started and then you get, “well this one guy on the forums said...” and he said he had years of experience with the real things arguments. Don’t mean to come of as brash, okay maybe a little, but I really get annoyed when folks try to establish credibility that way. Probably the same way some of the flyers feel when sim pilots try to coach them up on dogfighting.

The F-15C has a few issues of it’s own in terms of mil/max acceleration rates. I ran some tests based on EM charts a while back, but I honestly don’t remember which direction they were off, just that they were off. I want to say mil was too slow and max AB was a little too fast.

Then the sim doesn’t mirror reality. Good luck skipping STBY on the pod, ICMS, etc. chances are slim of powering up generators and having the jet interface correctly. Recipe for disaster and a lot of failed/starred items on the bit page. Ever seen a real pod fire up without EGI/INS? I have. Doesn’t work out well. It may work in a ‘sim’, it’s not necessarily true to real life. The ‘sim’ jet may not care, the real one does.

I can go down a list of reasons why you can’t just “reach in the back seat” and turn a few switches before climbing in the front and have everything work but 99.8% of folks won’t have the first clue what I’m talking about. In short...it isn’t that easy.

Yep, you are going about your “theorized testing” in many of the wrong ways. That’s not really how that works.

Are you comparing this to an EM chart from a flight manual or a marketing statement?

Cant speak to the ground ops, but if the engine model is correct/modeled, flight idles will not match ground idle in most cases. This is the same case in the real thing and is to aid with stall/stag prevention at speed. Flight idles will be higher and are dependent on airspeed. In the case of you original complaint, they are consistently attempting to model correct function of the real thing. Different aircraft, different motors, different operations. If you don’t wanna accept that, I can’t really help you, no one here can. With that being said, the hornet has it’s areas for improvement concerning the axis limits, but that’s not an F-16 forum complaint.

From my understanding, it went to 4 vs 8 sometime after 10 years or so ago. It used to be 8 minutes for an INS alignment, and it was improved to 4, at least with some aircraft (not sure about all). I’m taking a guess that it’s the GPS improvements that helped, but that is only a guess. I guess we’ll see eventually what ED is choosing to model.

I asked roughly the same question in the EGI thread with regards to the 8 vs 4 and when/why it changed. I never got an answer. Someone out there probably knows, but it isn’t me.

There’s a lot of mixing terms here. There are a few here that can get in the weeds with this (as I know a few on here have pointy head experience), but INS and GPS have to be thought as to separate things because in reality they are. INS uses gyros to spin and align, GPS uses satellite triangulation. On an EGI system, they both can be used in concert with one another. INS has to “spin up” to align, GPS works just like your commercial GPS. Yes, present position can be manually entered to speed up the process, or can be stored from previous alignment. The issue becomes when you tow the jet, or it’s moved from it’s last known position. From there, it has to realign itself. GPS picks up satellites, calculates heading, alt, PP...and it’s basically good from there. It also doesn’t have the drift issues that INS has, which is why it’s favored from an accuracy standpoint. EGI systems can use both, or one or the other, based on pilot preference depending on the aircraft. Some use INS as primary and some use GPS. If blended, the aircraft is going to compare both signals to try and give you the best accuracy.

As fluid settles, air often goes to the highest points in the system. In the -15 world, it’s common for it to go the SB actuator and EGSSV/Emer gen because it’s the highest point in the system. Same as purging with a mule in open loop, you have to work the air away from the actuators, etc. it is doing more than just warming fluid. It’s just one of those things, you’ll never get it all out, and if you do, something else will just push it back in.

:book: :thumbup:

FWIW, I'm not even sure if the BLK II version is even operational yet.

One could probably say the same for the AESA V1s, so I dunno. The -9X doesn't have a very good combat track record (RL) though...so are you sure you really want them?!? :)

Outside of OT&E? And C's only I presume?

Source?

Using a 9X before having JHMCS. Aircraft type I mean....

Who was doing that?

So when did the alignment time get to drop from 8 minutes to 4? If anyone knows the answer...

When I say -15 I mean F-15. Sorry, the whole "block" thing is not second nature to me, my life was spent on split tails.

Too many posts to quote on the discussion, but the act of combining them seems a bit silly to me too. If you have ever been around fighters, you know they spend as much time broken as they do FMC, why the heck would you want to combine all your nav systems into one box so you can expect to lose everything if you get a complete component failure. Of course, if I had a nickel for every time I asked myself why when it comes to aircraft parts. :D