Luzifer

22000 ft = 6705,6 m Ob das so soll oder nicht kann ich nicht sagen.

Tatsächlich gab es 707 mit Ausrüstung, um ein fünftes Triebwerk zu montieren und als Ersatzteil für eine andere 707 zu transportieren. Das allerdings innen und verkleidet. Ob die E-3 auch solche Vorrichtungen hätten, weiß ich nicht. Das mit dem unverkleideten Triebwerk außen ist natürlich kreativ. Fragt sich doch auch, welcher Treibstofftank dieses versorgt? Ist doch nur noch Platz für ein ganz kleines da außen.

Additionally it handles every wheel (or wheels with a common brake) separately. Blocking tires means you lose directional control. Spinning the plane and/or running off the sides of the runway are pretty undesirable outcomes. If you consider measures as desperate as this I'd say you made big mistakes long before landing.

Wenn man mit viel zusätzlichem Luftwiderstand Treibstoff verschwenden will, nur um den FPM im Zentrum zu habden, ja. :D

Sure, the comms options might as well be hand signs. Even if they're voice, they probably won't need a radio powered. At least in the A-10C, you have to correctly set a dial (if you're not on easy comms) so that mic goes to ground intercom instead of radio. I don't know right now if the Sabre needs a similar setting.

You wouldn't use a radio anyway. Imagine the jabber and confusion when a dozen planes get prepped for flight at the same time. It would be either hand signs or a headset plugged into the plane.

Freely castoring nose gears are used in smaller planes, it removes the complexity of a steering system. In DCS there's the MiG-21 and the Hawk with unsteered nose gears to my knowledge, maybe also the C-101. And for completeness, also the Mi-8 and Ka-50. Unsteered nose gears are recognizable by being in a dragged configuration, i.e. the wheel(s) are behind the rotation axis, much like office chair rollers. The reason for disabling steering of a steerable nose gear is that it is way too effective at the high speeds during takeoff and landing and would make the plane uncontrollable.

The radar is only for range finding. It relieves you of the need to do it yourself. For manual range finding you would set the correct wing span on the sight and then turn the throttle twist grip so that the circle matches the visible size of the plane. Given the range and the g-forces the sight can calculate where the bullets would go at that distance and put the crosshair there. So yes, you maneuver to put the crosshair on the target and fire.

The first Jumo 004 series had no fuel governor so the throttle position directly controlled fuel injection. So the pilot would have to be careful not to advance the throttle too far for the current engine RPM. I don't know what kinds of interesting failures these could bring about, but just one would be to cause a flame-out which in turn causes the fuel to be blown out the turbine unburned I guess. On the ground it could pool in the rear of the engine and catch fire. Later 004 series would automatically limit the fuel injection, but I don't remember how much service they have seen in the 262.

It's hardly the only plane. It is special in that it is a button that needs to be held where in most other planes it is a toggle that needs to be pressed to switch between nose wheel steering on/off. Naturally if the plane has no nose wheel steering it doesn't need to be turned on or off.

It works for me. The settings window shows a barometric pressure which can be modified with the knob and the displayed altitude changes when doing so.

(Found in current version in DCS 2.0) When the radar is set to 60 degrees sweep and I enter close combat mode then leave it again, the radar sweeps 15 degrees according to the screen. The switch can still be seen in the 60 degree position. Putting the switch in another position changes the radar correctly again.

Especially noticeable after setting weapons to safe. If I fire both Super 530, the 530 disappear from the PCS. Then I switch weapons to safe, but "530" blinks in the HUD. I'm not sure how this works in the real plane, but the fact that the weapon disappears from the PCS means there is no direct way to deselect it, so I'd say signs point to this not being correct. As a workaround, pressing a blank bottom row button will deselect. This happens in the same way for the Magic missiles. (Found in current version in DCS 2.0)

More generally, exchange the up and down values as well as the value_up and value_down values. Often up and down are the same, but if they aren't they must be exchanged.

Ähm... Ausgabe 1 zu 1,99 Ausgabe 2 zu 6,99 Restliche 118 Ausgaben zu je 12,99 Macht 1541,80. ... Und wenn der Preis schon nicht abschreckt, mit einer Ausgabe pro Woche dauert es über zwei Jahre bis alle Teile zusammen sind.

Eh, wieder so ein Abo-Modell. Die sehe ich immer wieder mal in der Werbung, mit der super günstigen ersten Ausgabe. Das Geschäftsmodell kann ich mir schon denken: Anfixen mit günstigen Erstausgaben, dann wird es teurer und weil man schon so viel Geld reingesteckt hat macht man weiter um nicht mit einem halben Modell für die Tonne dazustehen. Die sagen ja nie, wie viele Ausgaben es dauert bis man alle Teile hat. Weiß da jemand, wie viel dieses oder ähnliche Modelle dann insgesamt kosten? Moment, doch, in der FAQ stehts: 120 Ausgaben. Macht dann 1541,80 Euro.

Also, you don't have to worry about it downloading everything again. When the installer/updater sees another installation of DCS, it will copy over everything it can and only download the parts that are new or changed. Handling wise it's just like Art-J described, it just automatically avoids downloading where it can.

The ARU changes the ratio between stick deflection and elevator deflection. So it adjusts a mechanical lever or something. There is still direct (hydraulic boosted) mechanical linkage from stick to elevator. It is not in any way comparable to FBW or even stability augmentation. The only way it contributes to stability is by limiting elevator travel at high speeds and thereby giving the pilot finer control, which would reduce the possibility of pilot induced oscillations.

300 km/h isn't that fast and "not too hard" is relative. The problem with flying a sim is that you can't feel that you're pulling too hard - in a real plane you'd notice very much that you're suddenly at 6 g or whatever. Just go to certain speeds, look at the g-meter and pull. That should give you a feel for how hard you can pull.

If you have rudder and elevator authority it's not a flat spin. There is no standard exit out of a flat spin. It's either shift CG forwards or do stuff with throttle and ailerons to drop into a normal spin.

Die haben doch irgendwann schon mal gesagt, dass sie die FC Flugzeuge nicht klickbar machen. Das soll als Abgrenzung zu den anderen, tierfergehend simulierten Modulen so bleiben.

Again, there is precedent in the Ka-50 which has extremely reduced INS alignment time compared to the real world.

Man hat schon vor über einem Monat gesagt (weiß nicht mehr genau, wann), dass das Flugmodell von RAZBAM für die Entwicklung stabil genug ist und übernommen wurde und damit das SFM Geschichte ist. Auch denjenigen, die nicht suchen und das wiederholt gefragt haben, wurde das geantwortet. Also zumindest das wurde doch wohl gut genug kommuniziert.

I've seen that canopy bug on the forums before — was it before release of the MiG-21 or the F-86?

I think it was said that we can't make INS entries in the first beta release, so I guess you're going to have some difficulty getting a CCRP solution for dropping the bomb. You'd have to visually identify the targets and do a CCIP run. If I understood things correctly, which may well not be the case.