lunaticfringe

Double sided tape, exposed. Might be a bit of a pain for those portions on the desk, however.

That would like, you know, matter... ...if the F-15C were actually fly-by-wire. And in some instances this is due to lack of data, or a lack of SMEs having push the regimes in question to throw up red flags.

Rule #1: Whatever you do, don't let RvP get a PK on you. Brazil: "Oops..."

The more oblique the turn, the smaller amount of net energy required to negotiate change in cardinal direction; case in point- turns in the region between 15 and 30 degrees of pitch require approximately 20% less energy, whereas turns 60 degrees of pitch and higher discount your energy spent by *half*. Further (and quite possibly more important in the asymmetric fight) the turn radius compared to the fighter maneuvering essentially in the horizontal is substantially foreshortened. That is, you can exist *inside* his turn circle. To do so requires then that the bandit do one of two things- get oblique to meet you (and enter into a regime in which he's not necessarily suited) in an attempt to make weapon parameters, or attempt to redefine the center of his own circle through a reduction in his turn rate, up to a possible extension, before beginning his turn again; meaning, of course, you just got an opening. The challenge with energy tactics in a simulator is found in two key areas- 1. Visual feedback; it's more difficult to spot an aircraft on a screen, even a combination of screens or a huge projection, than it is in real life. What's more, you can't see many of the "tells" accurately, even if you *can* detect him- lack of wing flex, improper lighting damaging the ability to see aspect, etc. One must get very good at monitoring the vortexes to pick up for some of this lost information. 2. Patience; because you're not getting all of the data, it's very easy to get impatient, pull too hard, not vector roll in the right amount of lag or lead, and thus not get the required separation and angles desired from each successive pass. Practice. You've got to have a feel for stick and rudder position with your head turned away from the nose, watching the bandit. The relative horizon doesn't help consistently, because it changes as you roll. You need to be comfortable looking away from the HUD on a consistent basis 95+% of the time and driving the aircraft competently.

"YOU EVEN SOCCER, BRO?" -Germany to Brazil

Talk about first world problems...

Again, you're stating a difference is there *without acknowledging why*. The charts do not show altitude or speed LIMITS; they show performance based on a specific amount of EXCESS REMAINING PERFORMANCE. Thus, they're not actual "differences" as definable within the confines of the chart. You must fly as the chart was *constructed* to find where the variances exist, not simply drive to limits.

Note the capability remaining detail; if you are flying raw to the 68,000' plateau, you're not observing the data as provided, thus your comparison is invalid for the altitude peak. Further, "Standard Day" is 15C. Compare accordingly, and to the notices, and let's get apples with apples with actual bite, rather than differing fruit.

Energy loss in maneuvering on the Su-27 as of right now is not anywhere commiserate with the charts, or the real world. It's not simply ordnance drag, but of the entire airframe, and the wing loading versus applied thrust. Not only is weight a matter of delayed acceleration, but increased energy loss. The reason this isn't a problem for the SFM is that these factors aren't working in combination. Throw the PFM at it, and you're going to have an airplane that won't fight like people expect it to, based on what they've seen from low-weight, zero ordnance demonstrations. Folks are going to find out why airshows take place with two thousand pounds in the tank.

You know what's sad, is that the government of Ghana had to send over $3mil, cash, by air, to prove to their players they were getting their appearance bonuses. Look at the aid numbers given by the West- US, UK, France, Germany, etc, that goes down to that nation. Essentially, the US paid Ghana for their privilege of kicking Clint Dempsey in the face...

Shame it's not in the States; you'd have half a dozen (or more) radio shows tripping over themselves to hand out these to anyone wearing Columbia jerseys at the arena...

10 games for first offense. 7 for second. Now nine for third? Seriously, what does it take to get some punishment with real bite?

Lugano: "You are not a man" Chiellini: "Perhaps, but I am also not what's for dinner."

Eh. I'm a big proponent of "caveat emptor", and the Kinney F-35 thing doesn't phase me a bit. The board got all sorts of animated, but the fact remains that someone promised the sun, the moon, the stars, and whip cream and a cherry on top, and had not a snowball's chance in Hell of delivering. And there were individuals in place who were capable of confirming the situation, which made the choice to not back the project an easy one. I will say I was sad to see an old familiar name (that being "Stormin'") get mixed up in the fray based on his support for Kinney, but I can't say that what would have happened in the aftermath would have been any less painful than what has been witnessed here more recently with the former Beczl Studio, and now RRG. And the latter really makes me wonder if the lesson was learned from the Kinney experience. There has got to be a point where a third-party studio has to produce before being able to advertise the DCS brand, because it puts a laser focus right back on ED.

Weight really has nothing to do with it here; he should have never turned in the first place.

Seems my memory, or the overall back and forth context of the conversation isn't as I fully read it. I stand corrected. I'd rather be able to go back and review the full thing, but I'll leave it as shown.

Understandable given the earlier context of how the conversation was driving.

That was stated to karambiatos. Check your fire or learn how to read in context of a group conversation.

If you've seen the size of it and what it includes, it's worth more. But, it's becoming a hallmark of Western Civilization, that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You and I both know that he said more than the cherry-picked quote you've provided, and he dialed it back to clarify as the argument was brought to him. He did, however, show signs of frustration as his actual message was impaled by the nature of the echo chamber. That's his lesson. As to presentation, the general population "rah rahs" can learn to dial it back a good measure as well. Not every detraction is a personal attack, or an insufferable offense to ED's honor, and should not be approached as such. The moderation staff and the members of the firm who review the forums are adults, and can fight their own battles if need be.

Educate yourself instead of expecting others to do it for you. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Aerospace-Systems/dp/1891121014

I did. And I qualified my statements FROM THE START OF THEM.

No. Same rules apply. If you want to kill tanks with separation, use the appropriate tank killing weapons: RBK-500, for example. Won't work against an M1, but it should do just fine against T-72. Or Vikhr. Right weapon, right time.

I did no such thing; the APG-63PSP (which is what the F-15C DCS has been claimed to be, but is not even *close* to representing) and APG-63V1 are not AESA and do not involve compatibility with AIM-9X. While the V1 is compatible with both the latter and the JHMCS, stating that that I argued for their introduction when I did no such thing is rather ridiculous, don't you think? ED can make the Eagle what it's supposed to be with the full PSP suite to match up with the AMRAAM compatibility, get out of the way, and I'd be pleased as punch.

More than likely not, dependent on the angle at which the munition struck the target, and the relative aspect of said target towards the offset tank. Dropping a penetration weapon on a tank with a high angle of intercept is going to drive the overwhelming majority of its energy through the floor pan into the ground, rather than out to the sides. You'll get secondary effect going through the machine, shattering the hull like an egg and sending parts flying, but all of that energetic work takes away from the overall power of the blast. Thus, you might take a lot of paint off, maybe damage a track, pop it off the road wheels or such, but nothing that such a design can't shrug off. By the time that energy reaches the crew compartment of the adjoining T-72, it's going to feel like a really hard roller coaster turn for a few moments, but so long as shrapnel isn't hitting the fuel tank or the engine, it's not going to be a loss. Even with a more frontal, or side angle attack, the energy has to work through one tank and get to another. That is a massive amount of work, and by the time said energy reaches the second machine, it's going to be dispersed over that volume of remnant shrapnel, spall, and parts hitting the fuselage. Look at the amount of energy focused into a single point of a penetrator to get inside of that machine; something in that mass of armor, burning fuel, and none-too small amount of burning flesh needs to impact with that same amount of power to continue the chain. It's just not going to be there.