strikeeagle

Here's my overhead trak. You gotta fast forward past the fight. I kinda ballooned on the break. .trk

I was a crew chief, being an asshole is my forte. Like I said, you have no clue. The 250 rule is for civilian aircraft ONLY. Fighter aircraft are exempt from that rule that's governed by FAR Part 91. Below 10K in class A, 300+ is the norm.

You have NO clue what you're talking about. ZERO clue.

I like the overhead personally. Initial approach at 300kts, 1500ft AGL. I break about the center of the runway and pull 3g turn. By the time I roll out I'm close to 250kts. Once at 250, I drop the gear and flaps, but maintain 1500ft. Once I have the 45 degree from the runway threshold, I start a descending base leg then final putting the VVI right on the touchdown zone. I pitch for 160-150kts. Once I'm over the threshold, I chop the power, pop the speedbrake for a gentile touchdown. I aerobrake during the roll-out. That's what we did at SJ.

No. It's a 3 position switch....up, hold, and down.

Not for normal ops. There is a VMAX switch that can be used in an emergency that dumps more fuel into the combustion chamber and burner can. That will increase RPM to 102%, but the engine will require tear down and overhaul.

Max engine RPM is 96%. When burner is selected, the motor doesn't turn any faster.

In the real airplane all it takes is pressure applied to the stick grip to cause the flight control surfaces to move. Maximum stick movement causes flight controls to deflect more thus a faster pitch or roll rate. In the attempt to model the F-15 like the real jet...just use a light touch

You're right, they don't...:music_whistling:

Can someone please send me a copy of Mission 1 of The Shore? Thanks.

Alaska was the low-level, but the jets are from Kadena.

...after he rested, our Lord created the F-15 and it was good. AMEN!

Back to having those issues again. How can I fix?

I'm used to just LAU. Ok then...thanks for the clarification.

What in the hell is an MEL?

Ooooh...I see :thumbup:

Oh the FWD 106 on the real jet is reversed until it's needed. Weapons lowers the 106, turns it around, and reinstalls it in the correct direction.

So you mean, in DCS, the Strike cannot be configured to have a bastard load? The real airplane can do both and can be configured for both. As a matter of fact as resent as Enduring Freedom, we would carry 120's on the aft CFT station when carrying the AGM-130. This doesn't make sense to me, but whatever.

Not true. The LAU-106's are on the CFT's. 120's can and are loaded on the CFTS's.

Anyone???

Now why were the AMRAAMS and Sparrows removed from being able to load them on the CFTs?

No we don't...I have dual FMS and GPS in my jet so no mental math is required :smartass:

No, fuel consumption in a turbine powered airplane is dependent more so on temperature and altitude. Oh add wind too. In the case of the F-15, it's the engine control system. Fuel is scheduled by a UFC (Unified Fuel Control) in the old -100 engines and a MFC (Main Fuel Control) in -220/-229's. The key word is "schedule". The pilots sets what ever thrust is required by of course moving the throttle. Via linkage, the throttle is connected to the main fuel pump. The main fuel pump sends fuel to the MFC and the DEEC (Digital Electronic Engine Control) that controls the entire engine. Depending on outside temperature, altitude, and air pressures at the fan case and exhaust will determine fuel flow. For burner, a valve opens on the AB fuel pump that supplies fuel directly the AB spray rings. The AB fuel pump is independent of the MFC or the older UFC. Hope this helps.

Remember, that's for an "A". Current "C's" do not have the same engine, performance, or burn of a "A". A/B - F-100PW-100 C/D/E - F-100PW-220 E - F-100PW-220 or -229

The higher you go, the less fuel you burn in reality. Even in burner. So technically fuel flow should be far less at that altitude vs down low. After all, it's just a game right?