lunaticfringe

Perhaps from the standpoint of a 1 v 1, with two equal aircraft being flown by two pilots of equal ability. 20 miles at 1000 knots closure is roughly 90 seconds. I can do lots to lower your chances of survival in 90 seconds.

Been thinking about that book a lot recently with Aucoin removed as CDRPACFLT. Number of people I know worked under him directly over the course of almost forty years, and while the burden of command and it's outcome are a known quantity, the hope is that the knives will reach higher- because the issues hitting the surface fleet go back to all before he was leading a fighter squadron. Google Books doesn't have the full passage when I checked, but one thing to note is that one of the oft-linked videos of a Tomcat tagging a MiG-29 with a pipper comes directly from that det.

If you want the legitimate Tomcat experience, grind the heels off your flight boots, whether your pedals put them on the floor or not.

July 1991 version of "Gray Matter"- the F-15 RTU declassified study guide, Instructor edition.

AIMVAL Block 80s were configured for VTAS.

As do I. But while I do this sort of thing these days for pay, I'm the first to admit that I'm self-taught on the subject, unlike those I work with, and that I also am not the fastest on mathematical concepts when dealing with the conversations that come up. So I do the math, since it gets me in the right mindset and keeps me honest. And Darkfire- you're welcome. I'd rather go through the motions, especially since, as Frostie mentions, we've seen some heated conversations regarding other situations like this (see: Su-27 damage, AoA effect, etc) and I've done the same proofing there- that anyone can follow along with, so it's only fair to do it here. When folks can follow along with the numbers, and see that it's within two knots versus the chart relative to the ICAO standard day based on unknown weight, and the aircraft likely had a bit more lift given the average temperature, they can be confident that things are pretty well done.

Some serious standardized math from the back end of the simulation modelling environment I develop for. :)

There's a balance that needs to be struck here- while the ship took extensive damage, and seven sailors are lost, both of which speak to a lack of professionalism on the part of leadership in that monent, by the same token, the fact the Fitzgerald made it back to port speaks to their leadership prior, and for two (given the CO was incapacitated)- also in the moment. At some point, having honorable and competent careers end, in combination with the fact that the seven lives lost due to someone down the chain failing to follow a standing order will forever be on their conscience, is enough. And here is nothing available to the public at this time stating that the orders left on the bridge weren't correct, or not complied with. So let the investigation take place. The one aspect that stands out to me in the Supplemental Inquiry regarding casualties is the sole sailor who got out from the starboard egress, not mentioned in the story- he literally lost consciousness while attempting to swim for that egress, and has no recollection as to how he got out of Berthing 2. I get a sincere feeling in my gut that one of the seven lost assisted him and went back in for more. https://www.scribd.com/document/356573781/Supplemental-Inquiry-USS-Fitzgerald#from_embed

I have to concur with Beamscanner on the point that the audio being noted are callouts towards the synthetic responses, rather than the default presentation. I'm going through resource channels to see if I can validate that, but it may be a bit before I get a "yay" or "nay".

I've been watching this thread for some time, and while I disagree with neofightr's position, I have to admit to having derived no small measure of humor from the likes of this: He asked you if you knew in post #162, and then answered his own query, to which you weren't knowledgeable, in post #173. That's not hiding data- that's proving someone doesn't know what they're talking about. Which, considering you confused the Ps curves with CL Max, wasn't much of a stretch. There's a difference between using an old exchange as a frame of reference, versus using a thread elsewhere to have someone else generate responses on your behalf because you don't know enough about the subject to hold a discussion. The last I'm going to say on this ridiculous carnival ride of a topic: gerry, your understanding of aero amounts to catch phrases and recognition of terminology; you don't know what the underlying terminology means, and how it affects performance. When you call out a question in relating performance between the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, because the former's glove regions aren't "called LERX", rather than the differences in the design and implementation, what you're signalling is a hope that you're on the right track and can baffle others with an acronym- not actually hold a legitimate conversation about why a particular airframe to wing installation may hold a performance edge. It's okay, even as an adult, to admit when one doesn't have either enough knowledge or data with which to back a contention; hell- I did it just this morning discussing the F-15 flight model. When you not only need others to do the work for you, but consistently need to give the aforementioned hopeful signalling to try and stay in a conversation, you're well past the point of no return regarding legitimacy, and don't have much in the way of complaint to offer regarding people calling you out for what you don't know.

Regarding wing rock, first look here, PDF page 62, document page 51: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256613.pdf The gist of the full text is that wing rock begins in the F-15 around thirty units AoA, and is a function of speed, and gravity causes imbalance which increases the force. When modelling, and when actually flying the aircraft, because a pitch up removes the gravity imbalance from the equation, its affect is essentially negated, so the rock is lessened (lowered amplitude). Plus you're slower, so it's already less pronounced. It's been a while since I read the full document, but I would surmise that because you were so close to the limit you were at the point where rock, while present, should be minimal. How DCS calculates for such is unknown. At the same time, depending on the amplitude it may have only required minimal input to counteract, which may be smaller than the resolution of Tacview can show (consider how crazy roll maneuvers can look in some circumstances). Understand- I don't doubt when you say you didn't feel a need to compensate for the rock; I just don't have the information available to get a better feel here- it may be a point that Belsimtek couldn't compensate for in their model, it may be modeled correctly and natural fingertip input may have been enough under the circumstances to take care of it. A track would help, if only to see the control input display.

Alright- I was in the middle of doing the equations at full up given your original comments, and will present them here, but dropping two AMRAAM and JP down to half a tank substantially changes things; you'll see where I switch gears below: The first thing to understand is the noted exercise is a control lesson during F-15 conversion. This is a test of the student's competency in AoA control early on in their training; it should in no way be considered indicative of a maximum performance limitation, although proficiency at the 230 knot standard is important because it's a direct lead-in to their chandelle reversal technique. Of most importance here, at least as far as I can surmise, is Vs, which is derived from weight. If you're topped off, with a 6x2 configuration, you're right around 44500 lbs if you've been running around in blower for a couple of minutes (I can't tell based on the track timing, so I'm giving credence to the "fully loaded" statement). Call it 44850 for good measure, and raw calculated Vs at that weight, using: Vs = 17.2*sqrt[wt/(density ratio*608*Clmax)], or Vs = 17.2*sqrt[44500/(0.867*608*1.33)], equals 137.6 knots (note: density ratio used is ICAO's 70's standard for 5000', as it's one I know by memory) The best way to proof this when dealing with an aircraft that isn't in straight line 1.0G flight is to note the G's used and confirm what the speed is where its being used. So let's say 2.0G, based on your initial pull to the vertical; the first speed a given G load becomes available is Vs times the square root of the desired load. So looking for 2.0G, we need the following: x= [sqrt(2.0)]*137.6, or 1.414*137.6, so 2.0G is available as of 194.52 knots. On the surface, that seems like a concern when reviewing the video, where I'm seeing a point where Tacview registers 2.2G at 192 knots, but there are a couple of things I can't tell from the video- the first of which is the actual weight. Lower your weight around 2300 lbs to 42500 lbs, and that shaves four knots off your Vs- now you're looking at 133.8 knots vs 137.6, and 2.0G is available at 189 knots- five and a half knots slower. That's about halfway to where you should see 2.2G (198, with the square root of 2.2 being 1.483). The next proofing point for this becomes a factor is when you're nose high at 89 degrees pitch, and it's reading 1 G at 126 knots. I'm going to stop the original example numbers, based on the suggestion there was substantially reduced weight versus my original calculation. However, I'm going to leave it there as an example of how to track what's happening, and from this point use that 1.0G point as a proofing value: 60% gas, four AMRAAM and two AIM-9s are 40,056 lbs. Vs = 17.2*sqrt[40056/(0.867*608*1.33)] Vs = 17.2*sqrt[57.1338] Vs = 17.2*7.5586 Vs = 130.009 Again, looks like an issue. However, remember my note about using the 5000' density? ICAO's current 3000' density: Vs = 17.2*sqrt[40056/0.9151*608*1.33)] Vs = 17.2*sqrt[54.1307] Vs = 126.54 And note- that's without compensating for the difference in temperature against the standard 15 degrees C at sea level(!), which would lower Vs to a point that we're not talking about a half knot variance. Feeling better? As someone who has to track for simulation down to two knots on a slide rule, I myself am very confident with what is exhibited from a derived track on Tacview as illustrated. Now, how did you do it? You followed the limiter warning and got exceedingly lucky on your timing. It's also important to note that once you get your velocity above roughly sixty degrees, a similar function to what happens with angle of bank and required speed to maintain a level turn occurs, only it's trading the wing for your pure thrust component. So long as your net acceleration against gravity remains a positive number, you climb. And so long as you don't invoke more G than the wing has available, which you didn't, you don't stall- you're just no longer stalling at 1 G like you would in level flight because you're not in level flight.

USAF F-15 instructors dictate 230 knots and 30 units AoA at 5000' AGL. But hey- random person on the internet without any documentation whatosever says he's never seen it done at an airshow; I don't know about anybody else, but *I'm* convinced.

Stop talking about what you know nothing about, and have no data to back up. Once again, from the 325th TTW student RTU manual:

If that page is from the NAVAIR pub Belsimtek used, can that multi-page section be stripped and uploaded as a PDF? There's context missing, and the section would go far in solving the dilemma.

No problem. If you want to get the full effect, install Munt (Roland MT-32 emulator), and configure it with the normal MT-32 rom or CM-32L rom. Then once you have Fleet Defender installed in 3.11 in DosBox, set your sound configuration as follows: Roland (as you set with the rom, MT-32 or LAPC-1/CM-32L Address 330 IRQ 2 Then, for the digitized speech card, enter as follows: Soundblaster Pro (later) Address 220 IRQ 7 DRQ 1 This is the easiest set of parameters to guarantee it all works without conflict. Also, you have to run it from the Microprose folder rather than the Fleet Defender folder, unless you have DosBox mount the CD rom folder before entering the program.

Buy a large rotator off Shapeways by Debolestis, drill a hole in the proper position on the left throttle arm, install a pot, and wire it into the line to replace the Friction rotator axis.

Because you've been here since 2015. ED's production of the F/A-18C was openly discussed in 2010. Leatherneck didn't exit until 2014, and didn't announce the F-14 until 2015.

Watching examples of playthrough of the fights on YouTube, with essentially all of that cut out, doesn't help with this impression. If all I'd seen were some of the comments and those videos, I'd think the same thing as OP. So I'm not sure he's so much mistaken as misinformed through no fault of his own.

The cockpit gauge is +60°/-80°, which based on a couple of intercepts I've read, and had described to me, sounds legitimate in both directions, and conforms to materials I know I've seen, but can't for the life of me place right now. And as the AWG-9 defaults to -55° for ground mapping, the -25° value doesn't fit whatsoever.

Summer that came out, I was 8. Got to the point where I could go both sides of the TOP GUN soundtrack cassette on a single life. Dan and Steve Kitchen were geniuses. For my money, the 2600 version was more impressive than the 7800 given how little they had to work with- between Tomcat and Space Shuttle, they created the ultimate in simulation experiences one could have on Atari's hardware. They had no good business trying to pull them off, and they did it anyways with finesse. The base code was so good, Absolute recycled it two generations later in Turn and Burn on SNES, then Majesco (who had acquired the rights) double dipped with F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Super Hornet on GBA.

Nope- Rogue Squadron. (Fast forward to 10:55)

If the AI, or even a human opponent, reads you as slower than they are and subject to being defensive from their moving into the vertical, following their loop isn't necessarily the correct response as a function of timing- especially if you're substantially slower. You'll crest earlier, and lower than they will. Post merge, with relative turn circles close, it's better to initiate a moderate climbing turn around the bandit's vector. This way, you can trade less net energy than a straight vertical move, force his hand in trying to keep sight on you (less important against AI than a live body), and maintain a defensive reserve to pull up into him if he tries for the immediate nose-on. And if you can keep the climbing spiral close enough to his vector- ie, making his climb the center of your turn circle with a radius he can't match as he comes over the top, you don't even have to try and point at him, because he can't prosecute you on this pass. But that doesn't mean you can't reverse and put your HUD on him when he's stuck nose low once he's passed you. Keep your energy state until you have to spend it, especially if you're slower. If he makes a mistake, you don't have to trade in to maintain a defensive posture; he's already hurt himself- let the problem work itself out.

Tactical and strategic aircraft perform one of three roles: 1. Direct combat 2. Detection/Denial 3. Delivery If you're not shooting somebody, you're either finding targets, denying your people from being targeted, or delivering the material required for things to be shot- whether it's munitions, people, hardware, or gas. DCS doesn't have enough blue water on any map for ASW to work, and nothing large enough for full scale COD/theatre-level transport, which means non-combat roles are AEW, EW, troop ferrying, or tanking. AEW piloting is long hours in a single pattern. EW (which is so far beyond the current model of DCS it should be classified as a nonstarter) or playing Texaco has the possibility of following a package. Or you can do helo work, and that already exists. I'm not certain what you want anyone to come up with for something else here.