Frostiken

Christ I forgot this feature even exists.

The Pave Penny was probably removed earlier, as they're obsolete. And yeah, there's no equipment removed.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=78403 That thread is extremely relevant to some of the interests of this thread. And yeah, clickable ejection handles should be on there.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=78403

Bumping this thread, as this is honestly my #1 request for the series. In order of priority to me: 1) User-error-proof emergency handles in some form or another. 2) Standardizing cockpit knob and switch controls. 3) No more cyclic switches. 4) Implementing 'realistic' switch action - spring-loaded covers automatically close, time-delay added to switches that have to move over 'stoppers'. I understand how touchscreens or nonstandard control setups can have issues so I wouldn't mind if this was a control options setting "Enhanced Switches" versus "Standard Switches".

For as long as I can remember, we've been sending jets to WR-ALC with the conformals because the CFTs themselves needed depot-level overhaul maintenance. Since we only send a handful of jets a year, this has been a very, very long process. We just recently finished our overhauls and sent our first jet to Georgia sans-CFTs. The APG flight had to go nuts trying to find the covers and vortex generators :D It was really funny seeing one on a diet, but everything was there and intact. Plus, that thing with -229s in it would tear ass across the sky like no-one's business.

The HOTAS is nothing like the A-10s, but frankly if you already have the HOTAS Warthog, you'd be absolutely fine with just adapting it to the F/A-18. The stick is easy, the F/A-18 stick is extremely streamlined, it's the same in the F-15. Paddle switch, dual-stage trigger, three-position thumb auto-acq / reject switch, five-position castle switch, pickle button, and trim hat. Leaves you with lots of extra buttons. The throttle is only a bit trickier because of the analog radar elevation wheel (I assume that's what that is). The throttle grip has a three-position switch on the far left, two pushbuttons on the left grip, a TDC, and then on the inboard side, one more pushbutton and three rocker switches. Since McDonnell Douglass made both jets, I *assume* the rockers are: Radios (probably is four-position these days with the addition of ARC-210 / SATCOM), weapons mode (sticky), and speed brakes (one-way sticky). Problems: No elevation wheel, no left pushbutton, no right pushbutton, unknown rocker / slider switch function (someone probably knows more here). Solutions: Use coolie hat as elevation, hope I'm right about the rockers / radios in which case all will work on the A-10 throttle, use extra rocker to replace the two pushbuttons (I assume they are for chaff / flare program dispense, so chinahat would work great for this). If you're made of money and prize the authentic feeling, go for it, but my thought is that you really won't have any problems adapting your current setup with only a few minor deviations and a bunch of redundant buttons on your stick.

I gotta say the best thing about that video is simply seeing how people with different experience (in this case, none) learn the aircraft or what they think of it... I was able to figure it out more or less on my own only really because of understanding of how military aircraft tend to need to function, amusing watching people who don't even really know the difference between a taxiway and a runway :D

DCS: A-10C was created because ANG/AFR pilots needed avionics integration training on the new rollout of the A-10C with all its neat new features. They don't use it for training new pilots, the guys in there are already A-10A pilots. Your reason is incredibly silly, because they already have training tools for F/A-18s in existence. Plus, the legacy Hornet has been in the process of being mothballed for a while, replaced by both the Superhornet and, eventually, the F-35. If there was ever going to be a reason for an F/A-18 military simulator, it'd probably be for a foreign country. The F-15E actually has a potential reason for having a military simulator - in the last six years it's received billions of dollars of avionics upgrades and oodles of new features (with more coming down the pipeline in the next few beyond that), because the F-15E is expected to be in service for another twenty-some years. I've personally used one of the new trainers and it's really quite crude, so I can definitely see a window for a HOTAS trainer for much the same reason the A-10 needed one. The only modernization program I know of that exists for the legacy Hornet was to update the ancient dilapidated models to be somewhat comparable to the -C. Yeah... :( They said it was in case they don't get permission to release a civilian version, but what would that mean, that we simply get told nothing?

Yes, except, I already bought and printed mine.

So, three times as many people honestly would prefer the legacy Hornet over the Superhornet? ...

That's like saying a pickup truck is the best because it can drive fast and turn, which means it's great at racing. The F/A-18 has been a second-line aircraft since forever for a reason. The F-16 can be compared to the F/A-18 (though the F-16 would still beat the F/A-18 due to a superior airframe in just about every department save engine redundancy) but it's practically pointless to even compare it to the F-15E.

I think he meant a larger fireball, not explosion. A fuel truck would definitely not explode, but would certainly burn. A fully-loaded KC-135 hitting the ground would probably release a fireball big enough to be seen fifty miles away.

Oh my god, that as aggravating... No TrackIR, a joystick from 1997, and a Mac keyboard? :D I was patient up until the whole TPod fiasco, and how they kept thinking the Maverick was the target pod and never noticed that it said "TGP OFF"... Arguing over where the runway was, only to all agree that the taxiway was the runway... The exploding A-10 on the ramp was the best part though.

Icing aside, the only effects I've seen cold temperatures have on a jet aircraft are problems with flight controls on startup due to cold actuators and hydro.

Yeah, they do. Kind of ridiculous that they can fly like that. Typical pilot :p

For emergencies :p

Hey, I have that same aircraft in mine! Hahahahahahahahahaha *snort* HAHAHAHHAHAhahahahahahaa. You state that on what, your opinion? Because I have real experience on both airframes and the F-16 ain't all that. You have absolutely no idea what the F-15E is capable of. There's a reason why F-15Es were the first things into Libya. You also failed to address my very real point, that every F-16 sim is 90% the same damn thing. Falcon 4 BMS gives you a clickable 3D cockpit, a dynamic campaign (something ED doesn't even offer), and a nearly fully modeled F-16. The only difference would be that ED's would look a little better. People who want F-16 simulators are killing the industry. Might as well go ask why anyone even makes FPS games besides your next Call of Duty title.

I'd rather see the F/A-18 than another crummy F-16 sim, but in terms of actually being unique and interesting the F-15E is waaaay ahead of that by a massive margin. I think the F-15Es hurdle will be technical challenges... the classification isn't really that huge a deal. TEWS and radar, but that's classified in the F-16 and the F/A-18 as well.

F-111 makes emergency landing after hitting pelican Damage bill is hundreds of thousands of dollars Accident happened above homes AN F-111 was left "shredded" and incapacitated and was forced to make a spectacular emergency landing after hitting a pelican. The jet was flying at 900m on a test bombing raid at Evans Head, northern NSW, when a pelican struck the fibreglass nose and was sucked into an engine. The two RAAF crew are being hailed as heroes by their colleagues for their skilful recovery and landing on April 11. The damage, included a hole in one wing. Aviation experts said flying the plane would have been extremely difficult because the aircraft would have been unstable. An RAAF spokesman admitted the 30-minute flight path back to the Amberley base, 50km west of Brisbane, was over built-up areas. The nation's air combat chief, Air Commodore Neil Hart, said the jet's predicament and "precautionary emergency landing" was not serious enough to alert the public. ". . . No one was injured and there was no structural damage," Commodore Hart said. "One engine was working fine, while the other was at reduced power." He described the circumstances of the incident, which happened between 10am and noon, as near freakish. "It's a surprise thing at 3000ft to have a bird strike," he said. "It's certainly not the way we want to operate all the time. The boys did a great job in getting it home." Repairs to the F-111- one of 21 active jets - are expected to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Initially the pelican bounced off the nose before being sucked into an engine. [Lol] Its impact completely smashed the fighter's radome before causing an immediate engine failure. The damaged aircraft is expected to be flying again within a month. The F-111 fleet, built in 1974, will be retired in 2010 when an expanded fleet of new Super Hornets is introduced. At the time of the incident the F-111 was cruising at more than 550km/h. The Air Chief played down fears the damaged aircraft endangered homes across the region, though he conceded there were homes in its flight path. The pilot and air combat officer in the plane were both "reasonably experienced" flight lieutenants, he said. An Airservices Australia spokesman said the organisation was aware of the incident and granted clearance for the trip from Evans Landing to Amberley. Personally, I think with a shredded radome (they had to know it was like that), one engine out, and severe damage to the wing, they should've been reprimanded for trying to be heroes and risking their lives, rather than punching out. Addendum: Apparently these radomes are designed to explode comically.

I don't think ED is up to the challenge of the F-15Es avionics integration though... :D :D :D Maybe they should do an F-16 sim just to ride on the coattails of all the scrubs who are obsessed with this very unthrilling airframe. And then maybe the next sim company should come along and do the same thing, since ED's F-16 sold so well. And then when the sim industry is almost totally dead and the F-16 is long since mothballed, we can all look back and go 'Good thing we have a dozen simulations of the same stupid aircraft that has been replaced by the F-35, that all model the same avionics and do the same thing, too bad the last F-15E simulator was 1998, and this is the only fighter that still doesn't have a replacement'. Good riddance, go play Falcon 4 BMS if you love it so much, because it's 90% the exact same game that ED could deliver.

Yeah, I know, doesn't stop it from being annoying though :P

I will say it's sort of annoying not knowing even a timeframe of when we *could* know.

Because that's not realistic. The process is as follows - - External -21 covers are removed. - Cockpit is prepared, all pins removed and stowed. - Aircrew arrives, checks forms, performs walkaround check. - Aircrew in seat, crew chief delivers helmet and bags. - Crew chiefs may help pilot strap in, but waits for 'okay' from pilot. - Canopy strut removed, if applicable. - Ladders stowed. Grounding cord removed. - Aircraft powerup and preflight checks. - Ground communications terminated, crew chief waits in front of jet. - Chocks out, crew chief directs you to taxiway. - Aircraft taxis to EOR. - Arming pins removed at EOR and final check. (except for last week when EOR missed a gear pin that was left in... :D That was a quick flight abort!) You really wouldn't have to tell the crew chief to stow the ladder because he'd do it on his own once he's done with you in the cockpit.

I just played with it until I figured out most of the stuff on my own. It's not like you'll break it.