Vampyre

Like an extendable nose landing gear, catapult bridle assembly and holdback hookups, automatic folding wings... you know, the small details that allows it to operate from a carrier. The Air Force version has none of those features. https://forums.eagle.ru/images/attach/jpg.gif

The French don't own C-2A Greyhounds. The title of the video says the plane is from VRC-30, the US Navy west coast C-2A squadron. As for the painted area, all of the carriers I have been on don't have them so I can only hazard a guess as to what they are for. My guess is they are the hazard areas for the drawn out cross deck pennants. They are really hard to see from some angles at night and I don't know how good the deck lighting on this particular ship is but it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Your #2 engine probably didn't start. It happens sometimes when you use autostart. Just start up the engine and you will be good to go.

Strange indeed and whatever causing it might explain some of the sudden blackout events the guys I fly with and I have experienced with the F-5.

Military but non-combat types. Due to a lack of a suitable definition for "non-combat", I guess that means aircraft operated by military forces that lack the ability to, either offensively or defensively, react to threats beyond visually spotting and maneuvering. A C-2A, C-20, C-21A, C-23A, KC-135 or KC-10 might fit. Now if they mean military types without a significant offensive punch that have the ability to recognize threats through various systems and defend themselves through countermeasures then that changes the request considerably. A C-130 Hercules would be a top choice from talking to guys online and, even though it is kind of large for DCS maps, it would be very useful in many of the more popular mission oriented MP servers. The A-400M, KC-390 and An-12 would be in the same category and might be well received. I think smaller twin engine types would be more suitable for the current state of DCS. Planes like the An-26, An-32, An-72, CN-295, C-23C, C-27J and C-160 would fit well. For these planes there would have to be improvements with regards to proper cargo weight and balance and logistics within the DCS engine... of course, if it were to be implemented, part of the fun could be watching people taking off without verifying their weight and balance after loading the plane. :joystick: Similarly, AWACS/Reconnaissance types would be useful if they are implemented. Strategic high performance platforms are pretty much a no go due to map size but tactical types like the SF-37, RF-101C, RF-4C, EKA-3B, RA-5C and RF-8G would be perfect. Another that would be interesting would be the U-2 because of the very limited operating speed one has to fly at altitude what with never exceed speed and stall speed being so close together. On the Soviet side the MiG-25R and MiG-21R would be good choices. Any AWACS would work as a DCS module. Helicopters- all helicopters are good for DCS world... including the MV-22 Osprey So, my top five list of wants for fixed wing non-offensive types in DCS looks like this- MC-130H C-130H An-26 C-23C KC-10A Rotary top five- CH-53E HH-60H MV-22B UH-60L SH-3G

That was video from testing.

Depends on what year of the mid-90's F-14B they are modeling. LANTIRN TPS was available to the fleet in 1996 but the PTID wasn't available to the fleet until mid-1997.

It'll be a F-14B only if Heatblur are still making a mid-80's F-14A and a mid-90's F-14B.

Unfortunately, I have had something come up for Sunday and will not be able to attend. Happy hunting all.

Cobra, is Heatblur still aiming for a mid-90's F-14B and Mid 80's F-14A?

Every Marine is a rifleman. That saying is true. Even though some of them fly jets/helicopters, drive tanks/trucks and operate artillery pieces they are all riflemen first. They do not possess their own acquisitions/support infrastructure and instead use the Navy for that which is why NAVAIR is seen on everything aviation related. Their paychecks come from the Department of the Navy. They do not even have their own medical personnel instead relying on the Navy for their Hospital Corpsman. One of the interservice jabs that routinely gets used is that MARINE is an acronym- My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment.

That's because Marine Corps aviation falls under the aegis of NAVAIR and the Navy never invested in the AIM-9P... which was an Air Force only missile in US service. He is correct in stating that the aggressor squadrons flew AIM-9P's though. The Air Force calls them aggressor squadrons but in the Navy and Marines they are adversary squadrons.

Physically, yes it is easier to really crank the jets around a tight circle due to a lack of actual G forces but I'd venture to say it is harder to efficiently fight the platform due to a lack of sensory input. A lack of G forces, lack of peripheral vision and 3D movement are a major part of the difficulty, for me at least. Even the large professional full motion simulators can't get that right for the most part. VR, with its associated failings in the long range spotting department, goes a little way to help remedy this but without the motion and vibrations it is still very difficult to know exactly what your plane is doing without looking at the instruments through a soda straw... I need a bigger monitor. It is a lot harder to find the sweet spot without those sensory inputs.

No worries, it happens. I just grabbed a cold one, threw a steak on the grill and tuned in to Mavericks stream to enjoy the rest of the event... Scottish accents are always entertaining to listen to especially when the excitement level goes up and the expletives start flying.:thumbup:

The F-14 has a command eject lever that will allow the pilot to remain with the aircraft if the RIO ejects when "pilot" is selected. Selecting "MCO" will eject both crewmembers. The command eject lever is located in the RIO cockpit so you had better only allow someone you trust in there if you don't want them ruining your gameplay.

F99th-Vampyre #14 USA AV-8B

If the maps stay small in scale then there is no reason to have aircraft like the 737. The size of the maps are important for large airliners but for planes like the Cessna 172, Pilatus PC-6, Beech King Air, SAAB 340 or Shorts 330 they are good enough. To keep things interesting for civil pilots the DCS "World" has to get bigger even with the smaller civil planes. The fun is not only in operating the aircraft, but going to different locations as well. Hopefully this can be realized in the future.

The Yugoslavian/Serbian display team is called the Flying Stars.

Perhaps we should be thinking outside the box?

Is it a Galeb? Is it a Super Galeb?

Not true. VF-213 was in my Air Wing (CVW-8 ) during the war cruise in 2003 on the TR. VF-31 then joined us for the final Tomcat cruise in 05/06.

We never had a problem with ice or snow on the deck. Snow rarely accumulated on the deck and when it did it was not there long. Steel is not a good insulator and the ship is packed full of equipment and the crew all of which create heat. Between that and the fact that during flight ops there were so many jet engines turning that the conditions were not good for H2O to remain in its solid form. I can tell you that a Maglite stuck into jet exhaust right by the tailpipe for a couple of seconds makes a great hand warmer.

Here's the more accurate account of the story. Wikipedia sucks. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10314/the-time-a-f-4g-wild-weasels-anti-radiation-missile-blew-apart-a-b-52s-tail

Nice. Needs a little refinement I think but very promising indeed.

It's the Su-7IG. Technically still a Su-7. It is the prototype for the Su-17/20/22 jets.