Rainmaker

We definetly fill the tanks completely full, and that’s necessary to do a high/low cal for the fuel probes in the tanks. The tanks have P/V valves, and will vent and pee. Very common in summe. External bags are more suseptable as they don’t have the bladders that the internals do.

IIRC, pounds per gallon differs about three tenths of a pound from the high end to the low end in your normal temperature ranges. There were charts in the maintenance manuals for fueling and high/lo cal fuel quantity calibrations to account for temp. That was for JP-8, so not sure how much it varies with other gas types.

Haven’t flown anything in a while, but the last few times I did, I noticed that you could cycle the waypoint on the fuel page to one that is nonexistant in the flight plan and it would go away. With that being said, it would bug out and you could no longer cycle the steerpoint after that. Not sure if that still works or not as I’m a few beta releases behind.

Yes...mud hen, beagle, dark grey...all nicknames for the E.

Originally Posted by QuiGon View Post Some aircraft have the ability to use A-A TACAN, but that is only for long distances to find each other in the first place, not to meassure formation distance. Which was inaccurate...

What the few above posts say is pretty close to my response. It’s an SA tool.

That statement isn't accurate.

Need vs availability was a big part of that.

The Strike Eagle community fielded them for a bit, saw quite a few crews come back with busted nose bridges. Think word spread and most abandoned them. They dont seem to react to well to Gs.

Looks like a map bag to me, not anything missing.

It doesnt really exist during engine start so not much of a need to turn it off. Most of your bleed air valves are goint to be fail safe close anyway and with no power/servo air they will be closed.

The AF has been using a laser varient operationally for a decent number of years now. It was fairly well known that the version of the A-10 developed for the military side of the house had the capability in it. That is the same way some modders figured out how to modify the LUA to enable it again but ED hard coded it out.

SA purposes for the stores would be the only real reason. It’s pretty much either you do it the way it is or have something in the ME to do so, otherwise you run into potential conflict if multiple people are lasing the same generic code during coordinated strikes in the same area.

Coordination is always needed...just not directly input by the pilot. Function of a few different things. Pilot puts the stick where he wants it, the computer does the math to figure out what control surfaces to move. In the case of roll and rudder inputs, some of that is hydro/mechanical.

Not entirely true. They are not true fly-by-wire, there are still cables in the system. So while the primary system is CAS, there is still the ability to move surfaces as long as there is hydraulic pressure.

That is part of what CAS does, it coordinates the turns. Yes, it is designed to input rudder commands depending on the situation. When you start getting technical, you start talking aileron/rudder interconnect, etc.

You guys are looking way too far beyond where you need to be. You guys have already covered it. It's a "sim" limitation, nothing more. Any of your standard PWII and PWIII (10/12/16/24/28/etc) munitions are going to be set on the seeker head body itself. Takes a flathead screwdriver to do, very basic. Your updated munitions, like the 31/38 for example, are of course tied to the MUX and can be changed on the fly.

Passive tracking/attack. They have been doing this for a little while now. It’s just modernizing what we have.

I wouldn’t personnally call that twenty years since they didn’t come out till ‘02 but to each their own. There’s always a chance you can order the part. Even if you purchase a new stick, probably eouldn’t be a lot of expense to keep that one from being a paper weight.

Just piggybacking on this one since it was brought up again in one of the podcasts, apparently the -47 doesn't require the switch to be armed...so if they don't have the answer already maybe they can reattack with him and make sure the functions are correct. The NATOPS manual refers to it having to be on, but since they went with an undated CM system, perhaps that's one are that will vary from what's in the manual. About 39 minutes in.

Or not...

My memory wants to tell me they were somewhere between 2000-2500 lbs, but I might be wrong there. I’m sure I could find the info, just takes time amd effort. As for penalty, I personally don’t know and I dont believe there’s any EM chart data out there (might be for the C to compare CFTs to ext bags). I would be merely speculating at this point.

To my knowledge the 229 EM charts are not publically available. They exist of course, but they were in later -1 editions that are not floating around on the net. You can see the 220 charts to get an idea.

It’s a lot bigger than you think depending on the motor. Gross weight increase alone with full tanks is somewhere around 14K lbs if I remember correctly. That’s more weight than the internal fuel load. That doesn’t include the drag penalty which is significant as well.

Anyone confirm if the low drag delivery has been fixed with the update and addition of the ballute version?