CF104

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

Just confirming that you have visually confirmed that the flaps are not down? Is this in flight of on the ground? Cheers, John

Jester was giving me landing callouts for my first few flights and now he is totally silent during approach and landing. I have disabled and re-enabled the callout option but still not a peep from Jester. Anyone else having this issue? Cheers, John

It's actually based on compressor inlet temperature and not just the mission temp. So at an altitude of 36000' @ Mach 0.85, the ram rise is about 30°C. The OAT at that altitude is at a relatively constant -54°C. Subtract the ram rise and the airframe is actually feeling -24°C. There's lot's of variables to make that chart work over Mach and OAT to give proper compressor inlet temps. Cheers, John I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer so this just comes naturally.

And taking this into account, this will mean performance on aircraft will be equal to or less than the test cell and never better. It's usually less once installed into the airframe. So far this is the only concrete data I can find as it's not in the -1 for the F-4E. If the J79-GE-17 testing information from TO2J-J79-96-9 won't do, then what document is out there to support the instantaneous throttle response as modeled? What needs to be found is a full maintenance test runup card for the -17 as installed. But as it stands the modeling is not correct. Cheers, John

I don't think there's a debate going on in regards to the flight behavior of the F-4E. For me at least, it's the speed of the trimming itself. I have no problem making small trim adjustments as required. As long as the adjustments don't give me 1000-2000 fpm excursions. With my hardware, WinWing Orion2/F-16EX joystick, I can't "flick" the hat quick enough to get the "tiny inputs" you're talking about. And this is what I think the discussion here is about. If I could get it down to trimming with "tiny inputs" via my hardware I'd be happy to trim the jet all day long. As an aside, I have an original B8 grip in my collection and the trim hat on it has very aggressive centering. I doubt you could do a "tiny input" of less than 100ms on the B8 hat. My hardware has much lighter centering and I'd more than likely halve the time per click. Unless a real B8 grip was used to program the current trim timing I'd say there's some valid comments/concerns from users here. Cheers, John

Maintenance are the ones who ensure that these numbers are met. The guaranteed part is a goal to be achieved with minimal gains on improvement once it's met. Rarely will they be exceeded by any significant margin. I've been in aviation maintenance for the last 42 years and working on turbine powered aircraft for the last 34. In my experience one may occasionally see a up to a 1 second improvement on the acceleration numbers but usually they're bang on the numbers for a good condition engine. Even if they come close to the -11 engine as shown in the YouTube TF-104G video or the -15 burst chart it'll be way more realistic than the instant response it currently has. Cheers, John

Hi All, Here is the J79-GE-17 test cell idle to mil guaranteed acceleration time chart. It shows that the fastest accel time is 5 seconds at 50°F(10°C) which is at the bottom of the bell curve. cooler or warmer temps will cause longer acceleration times. Cheers, John

Hi, The J79 acceleration is completely controlled by the Main Fuel Control on the engine. It has an internal scheduling and governing system that can't be influenced by aircraft mounted controls. As it stands the HB engine acceleration modelling is too fast. I've attached the engine burst acceleration chart for the -15 (C/D) which shows a 4.5 second accel time from idle to Mil. I can't find the -17/-19 chart but I'll keep looking. In the meantime, here is another YouTube video of a TF-104G (J79-GE-11 which is essentially the same as a -15) and you can see the burst check does take a good 4.5 to 5 seconds from idle to Mil. As soon as I can find some -17/-19 information, I'll post it here. Cheers, John

I'm not sure of the actual technical manual figures for pitch trim times but using the stick hat I can go from full nose down trim to full nose up trim in 10 seconds. That seems a bit too fast and could be a part of our problems. Cheers, John

MT user with the same issue. I've also had to assign the pitch trim to a rotary encoder on my throttle base which allows for much finer control of the trim inputs. It's a bit of a pain on the approach since the encoder isn't on my throttle levers themselves. Lets hope that HB can make a fix for this as it does detract from the flight experience of the F-4E. Cheers, John

Hi, One thing to consider is that the F-4C has the J79-GE-15 which has a different nozzle and lower operating temperatures than the J79-GE-17 in the F-4E. The F-4E J79-GE-17(without low smoke) has the following parameters: Idle EGT after start is 220°-420°C Idle nozzle position is approximately 7/8. Idle to 80% is mechanically scheduled linear to just below 1/2. 80%to Mil is either mechanically or temperature scheduled to below 1/4. In afterburner the nozzle is temperature scheduled to control the max EGT below 678°C @ 15°C OAT. This is accomplished by varying the nozzle area (anywhere between 5/8 at min and full open at max A/B) as required to maintain this temperature. See the following youtube video. It's a -19 on the test stand with the same nozzle, control system and temps as the -17. Cheers, John