Sundowner.pl

hmm, Acedy accidentally made it a bit complex. Ok, so first, there are not many helicopters with pure Fly-By-Wire controls, actually I know only three - S-76, S-69 and RAH-66. Now most helicopters have actually mechanical connection to hydraulic control servos, and the FBW while exist, is only a backup system (like BUCS on Apache). Now in helicopters that have force trim system - the cyclic and rudder pedals are centered by a feedback system. And what the 'Force Trim' button do, is sets the 0-0 position of that feedback system to the position where cyclic/rudder is currently. For example, you're in a Blackhawk, hovering over a point while picking up downed airman using a hoist, you have a wind head on, so you normally would have to put cyclic forward to counter the drift. When you have found a position where you can keep the cyclic and the helicopter stay constantly in one place, you push the 'Force Trim' button, and it resets the feedback system, so in this 'new' position you don't feel resistance, this now becomes the new neutral cyclic position.

Don't know where your data is, but the exercise with Indian AF were limited almost entirely to BVR engagements, F-15s vs A-50+Su-30+MiG-21 combo. The biggest restriction was - no AWACS support for the US fighters, who were playing the aggressors role, so not much maneuvering (as BFM) there. Take a look how the F-16s are used - for example in ANG units - two weeks of A-A, than two weeks of A-G, and switch. F-15C units - whole month of A-A... than again and again... those birds are more stressed during their flight time, than any other machine in US arsenal, than think about Israelis, who have more flight hours per year.

The F/A-18s should be tougher, those were build for spending whole their service time pounding carrier decks in turbulence and corrosive environment. Plus while in the air - because of the 7.5G limiter, and strike/fighter role - they are not stressed so much like the F-15s. Yet take a look at Canadian CF-188, those were put into service in 1984, and after 20 years they need major fuselage overhaul (actually the whole midsection should be replaced). The F-15C in USAF is a pure fighter, if it fly - it fight for most the time, and it does it on the edge, always high AoA, shuffling with throttles, +9Gs - and often, especially in ANG and IAF (high pilot hours per year). The design by itself is maxed out, the top allowed speed is not because of the aerodynamics, not because of the engines... its because the windshield start to melt above 2.3Ma. And this is why that design newer stop to amaze me, this thing serve already twice as long as it should be... and it will stay for few decades ahead.

F-15 is way to valuable to be scraped because of one crash (note that was second in that unit) they'll find the problem and deal with it. The only reason the whole F-15C/E fleet is grounded is because there is suspicion of structural failure, that could be design flaw of a newer component - then all aircrafts have to be modernized, or - more probable a material fatigue... on a 27 year old 9G fighter-only airframe, that would be normal.

Well, it was nearly 27 years old fighter. Even Hornets don't live that long.

Defend ? Against Ukraine ? If it was a WAR between Russia and Ukraine, it would be over in few days, without using nukes, it would be just flooded with tanks and soldiers. It's not a war, it's a middle-scale conflict, no nukes needed here.

You must be kidding me. Since 2002 there is no treaty against anti ICBMs weaponry. And it was about protecting missile sites, not entire nations or cities - that's why in 1995 Russians put their A-135 system near Moscow into service. Anyway you must be delusional if you think that American GMD can protect anything from full power strike. There will be 12 missiles in Poland, somewhat 32 in US. What's at most 44 missiles blown from the sky when the other guy have them hundreds ? GMD is not against Russian nuclear power, its at most against few 'accidentally' fired missiles (let it be pure accidental or terrorist attack).

I don't see how this could be done - the Force Trim switch I mean - in RL that switch resets controls feedback system to 0 - where the controls (cyclic and rudder pedals) are at the time, without Force Feedback, or other fancy feedback systems in our joysticks and rudders this won't work as it should be.

Not really, you can climb high enough to be outside of SA-9, SA-7 and ZSU-23-4 range, and drop Paveway guided on Apache's laser :thumbup:

The A-10 can carry BLU-107 (don't think thoes are in service anymore) and Paveway bombs equiped with BLU-109 and BLU-116 warheads. They can be droped as dumb bombs or laser guided.

I don't think so... a 'standard' cockpit will be the Ka-50 :megalol:

Right now, its Saitek Cybrog EVO stick, InterAct SV-242 throttle, self made rudder, and small 7 button panel, all wired into Mjoy16 USB-controller. That controller gives me 8x 10bit axes, 64x pushbuttons, 16x double-toggle switches, 4x rotary encoders, and one 8-way hat switch.

I just wonder... I have 112 button controller, and since its more than Windows by itself can handle, the LockOn freaks out every time I want to bind any control to any button - it just randomly throw in buttons from 33-112 range. So to use my controller I have to use SVmapper, but that really don't cut it. Any improvement with this in DCS ?

Every shadow is static on a screenshot :smilewink:

Than throw it of on the physics card, or another computer in the network. Most people will have to upgrade their machines to play DCS anyway, leave the parts, connect in 1Tb LAN, and have a machine for processing such environmental events.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tGG5cchKoc There really should be an IQ test before PPL(H)/CPL(H) certificate check ride.

Hey, didn't know you're flying Hips now, man I have to get Cygan here, he's Mi-24 crew chief, maybe you both could have a laugh together :thumbup:

Yup, wrong ;) 206 is the Jet Ranger, 205 and 210 are Hueys , 212 and 412 are Twin Hueys. There is a 407, thats a Long Ranger with 4 bladed rotor identical to that of OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Actually, all Bells which number start with 2, have two-bladed rotor, and the one with 4 are four-bladed.

By the way, some serious time ago I was talking with two Navy helo pilots - both at the time flying Mi-14s, but had experience with flying Mi-2/4/6/8/17, really experienced guys, and they had a fun of the Mi-24 jocks. Their joke was that the Mi-17 was more survivable attack helicopter than the Hind, because: "When a Striela hit you, it will fly through the 'paper-like' fuselage, without setting of its fuse, when in the case of the Hind - when the missile hit that 'armor' it will definitely BLOW UP" Of course this is total bravo sierra, but nonetheless a funny thought :smilewink:

Ekhm.... Boeing Chinooks just won the USAF CSAR order :music_whistling:

I just got a reply from AH-64 Crewchief:

No, I don't. That's the ammo and armament of ZSU-23-4 Shilka, and that's the system Americans feared the most. The AZP-23 cannon have a 2,5km effective range, but most typical test firing for testing armor are done at max 200m.

It actually say a lot. If an American brochure say about protection against 23mm rounds, that mean a 23x151mm 190g API-T and 188g HEI-T ammunition fired from AZP-23 water-cooled, gas operated cannon at 970/980 m/s of muzzle velocity.

I haven't seen listings of what type of protection each glass/acrylic panel gives, except the one between pilot and co-pilot/gunner, which is stated to withstand a direct hit from Russian 23mm. Brad, do you have any info on this, or should we call the Boeing company ? :smilewink:

Sooo... where do I sign ? :thumbup: