CF104

Hello, I have been making observations on the landing gear retraction/extension times as compared to the only reference I have that gives the actual transit time. This reference is NAVAIR 01-F14A-1, 1 JUNE 1972, Page 1-173 under NORMAL OPERATIONS. In this chapter it states that the "The normal transition time for operation of the landing gear is 9 seconds.". This reference in NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 (15 MAY 1995) and NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1 (1 AUG 2001) has been removed and replaced with the following CAUTION: "Unless attempting fast-cycle troubleshooting for gear that indicates unsafe nosegear down, transition light illuminated, wait for gear to completely transition (15 seconds with normal hydraulic pressure) before recycling the landing gear handle. When fast-cycling the gear handle, the pilot must immediately return gear handle to down position to avoid damaging the main landing gear doors and inducing a possible combined hydraulic or brake system failure.". The sim actual timed retraction/extension as taken from the cockpit indications are 16 seconds in both the A and B. The external modelling is 19-20 seconds for extension and 16 seconds for retraction. I get the impression that the CAUTION statement has been mistaken as the actual transit time. Looking at several videos of Tomcat departures, the gear is definitely retracted within the 9 seconds as stated in the first reference. In my aircraft maintenance experience, I see this caution as derived from operational experience and does not reflect the actual transition time. I feel that the 6 second buffer from the "The normal transition time for operation of the landing gear is 9 seconds." to the 15 second CAUTION statement, is there to prevent the aircrew from recycling the gear too soon. This isn't a show stopper except that the gear is very easy to overspeed on departures with the 16 second retraction time as currently modelled. Regards, John

Another video showing the wing reactions while folded with the engine running. They do bounce around quite a bit with the engine running while folded. The effect on the carrier with the engine off is unrealistic but maybe Magnitude 3 LLC can make it that the wings shake and bounce only with the engine running. Cheers, John

Here's a good in-cockpit video of a F4U in flight. Although it is a non original cockpit restoration, it shows the proper MP gauge operation. You can see the MP gauge (below HSI) is rock solid with no fluctuations. Cheers, John

That's a very broad group of assumptions you've made. In my 43 years of aircraft maintenance, I've worked on many WWII and post war era aircraft and the lack of quality you speak of is very incorrect. Some of the best engineering and workmanship came out of the war effort and that's a fact. Instruments, in particular, are very precision. My Father-in-law is a watch maker and has repaired dozens of warbird instruments over the years and I can tell you from first hand experience that the quality is way better than you surmise. The way the F4U RPM and MP gauges are operating now is not right. The constant vibrating needle is incorrect and setting a manifold pressure of 44.5" is impossible when the needle is bouncing between 41 and 48 like an oscillating saw. IRL these 2 instruments are critical for proper power management and engine life and operate rather smoothly as posted in the videos here. Magnitude 3 LLC needs to correct this behavior in a future update to bring it closer to the expected realism. Maybe it's the same programmer who decided to make the folded wings shake while parked on the carrier and the antenna post to whip around like a sword in flight. Both equally unrealistic and immersion breaking. Cheers, John

You'll have a lot more flexibility in tuning the brake axis if you make it a slider (click Slider box) instead of what you're doing there. Cheers, John

If you reread the OP's post, it was a 2 part comment. First about the fuel cutoff time and the second about the inertial coast down. Both of which I covered in my reply. Not a deal breaker as you say. Cheers, John

Slowly stopping the engine at fuel cutoff just isn't a thing with pressure carburetors. When I worked on aircraft with pressure carbs, the cutoff of fuel was definitely under 2 seconds. When going to cutoff, the engine will momentarily lean out causing a quick audibly perceptible rise in RPM and this doesn't take very long. Once the fuel is no longer being supplied by the pressure carb, the engine should coast to a full stop in about 5-7 seconds. I haven't tested the shutdown timing myself but I will on my next flight. Here is a video from the cockpit showing the cutoff procedure. Probably not a -1D but it's a R-2800 nevertheless. Regards, John

I don't think I asked for a snide comment but thank you for the insight and sorry I'm not using it to your expectations. I did say that I was just getting into using the Lightning II and JDAMs and that I'm having the same elevation issue. When I want to get into the tactical use of JDAMs, I'm sure you'll be the first person I ask. Regards, John

This explains why I'm having problems setting up Mark Points with the Lightning II. I'm just getting into using the Lightning II to set up TOO for JDAMS and every mark point is pointing in the right direction but well below the intended Mark Point after selecting WPDSG. Hope they sort it soon. Cheers, John

Same here. I just bought this module and would expect better key bindings by now. Cheers, John

I built a new powerful gaming PC in April and was surprised to see micro stutters all of the time with the occasional huge framerate drop. I ended up disabling the windows Power service even though it was set to high performance. As soon as I permanently disabled this service I've had nothing but butter smooth framerates. Might be worth a try. Cheers, John

Thanks, This is exactly the point I'm making. Looking for your wingman and checking wing position is all part of SA. The fact that HB has set them in a position for social media selfies makes them totally useless in an operational sense. Cheers, John

The gear oleos are definitely not pogo sticks. They are designed to absorb the shock and significantly reduce the rebound. The last thing you want is the jet being blasted back into the air by the "pogo stick" and totally confusing the air/ground logic. Cheers, John

Hi All, This is just my opinion and I've searched here but haven't seen any comments on the pilots mirrors. For me they are useless unless you're looking for selfies and like looking down the intakes. The center mirror is focused on the pilot and provides no SA what-so-ever. The side mirrors don't provide any field coverage beyond the intakes. I feel that there is no immersion using these mirrors and they need to be a lot more useful than for just looking at yourself. Cheers, John

Same here.

I believe you're assuming that the oxygen regulator is only supplying oxygen at ambient air pressure. Aviation oxygen regulators in fighters take into account the ambient air pressure and provide a higher than ambient pressure to avoid this situation. This is an assumption on my part in that the Mig-15 doesn't use a diluter/demand style of regulator since it has very simple controls. It looks like a pressure/demand regulator which supplies 100% oxygen at a higher pressure than ambient to supply the pilot with breathing oxygen. A pressure/demand systems provides 100% oxygen under pressure and is good for use well above 40,000 ft. Here is some educational reading on aviation and oxygen masks. Oxygen mask - Wikipedia Oxygen masks 101 - AOPA EDIT*** Additional Mig-15 information Here is a section from the USAF document derived from actual testing of the Mig-15. It states the Mig-15 has a combination diluter/demand, pressure/demand regulator. "The oxygen regulator is an automatic diluter-demand, pressure-demand type (127) which is made operational by opening (counter-clockwise) the two valves (125 and 126). Gauge (81) indicates oxygen pressure,, and oxygen flow is indicated by a standard type blinker (41)." Link to the entire document. https://www.governmentattic.org/14docs/MIG-15pilotOpManual_1955.pdf Cheers, John

It would help if you posted the time mark of the mentioned clip. Cheers, John

Hello, While in Altitude Hold and accelerating through the transonic region, the autopilot doesn't react according to the IRL F-4E flight manual. At 0.9 Mach there is a slight altitude fluctuation that the AFCS handles as the initial shock wave passes the pitot boom static port. Passing through Mach 1.0 causes a quick increase in indicated altitude accompanied by a violent pitch down by the AFCS followed by an AFCS auto disconnect. This is contrary to the real life flight manual stating that there will be fluctuations but not violent. It would appear that the static pressure shock wave influence may be overdone? Applicable TO 1F-4E-1 reference and flight track file attached. F-4E testing AFCS ALT HOLD.trk

I'm having the same issue. Not a peep from the Crew Chief after getting the okay for the ARI - Check. Followed the above and get a time out from the CC. I'll keep trying to see if I can get it to work. Cheers, John

Keep in mind that the HSI distance display doesn't only show TACAN range. With the BRG/DIST switch set to NAV/COMP it can display Nav Computer destination which can be much farther than a TACAN station. And it's possible to have a destination beyond 1000NM if you're crossing an ocean with several air refuelings. Cheers, John

Thanks for the quick reply. I was wondering if that was the process but wasn’t 100% sure. Cheers, John

Hi All, Excuse my ignorance as I’m relatively new to DCS and the way it handles hotfixes. How does one apply the hotfix to the Phantom? Thanks in advance. Cheers, John

This is something that will definitely have to be programmed in the module. Cheers, John

The Hornet doesn’t require rudder to level the wings on approach. The FCS on the Hornet automatically corrects for yaw/sideslip in turns. All aircraft use rudder on landing rollout to maintain directional control. The only time you’d input aileron control on the landing roll is to counter a strong crosswind to keep the upwind wing from lifting. Cheers, John

No disrespect meant, but this thread is about "Elevator trim too aggressive". If you feel strongly about this issue, it's probably best to start a new topic than to hijack this one. I, for one, would like to see this get back on topic. Cheers, John