AlphaOneSix

I think 50 hours is a reasonable goal to strive for as a private pilot, even though I'm a bit below that myself. If you're planning to be instrument rated and maintain it, I would call 50 hours the minimum, unless you're okay doing occasional refresher training with an instrument instructor. There is no currency requirement for a private pilot to be PIC during VFR without passengers, other than the 2 year flight review requirement. In order to carry passengers, you must have had 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days. If you intend to carry passengers at night, you need 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at night. You don't need an instrument check ride every 6 months, as long as you remain current you don't ever need one. Of course, to be considered current for instrument flight, you must perform and log at least 6 instrument approaches within the preceding 6 months (plus at least one hold and tracking a course).

I don't specifically have a take on the EGT isue with the UH-1H module. Mostly because I rarely fly the UH-1H. The vast majority of my effort goes into the Mi-8, which is what I know the most about in real life. Also, the testers really don't, as a rule, have much more insight than anyone else. We have access to report bugs and see what's in the bug list, but we don't necessarily have any idea what the devs are really working on at any given time or how they are prioritizing their work.

Well I'm certainly open to being proven wrong, but if the system tries to fire the gun (called an "impulse") just once every time a "safe zone" passes in front of the gun, that's still trying to fire each gun on a Bf109 about 2700 times per minute (assuming 900 rpm at idle, or some other really low rpm setting), which is still 3 times faster than an MG131 can fire. So I don't see how the rate of fire for the guns is appreciably slowed down.

My understanding is that it doesn't really affect the rate of fire. That is, the "synchronized" guns are really just fire in a sort of "semi-automatic" mode. That is, the pilot's trigger activates a clutch that allows the gun to be fired, while a gear attached to the engine camshaft is technically "pulling the trigger". In effect, the prop is telling the gun to fire one bullet at a time, but it does so far faster than the gun is capable of firing... The synchronization system might try to fire the gun 12 or so times between the time the gun fires one round, and is capable of firing the next round. Keep in mind that the gun is not capable of firing multiple rounds between each blade as it passes, the opposite is true. I don't know exact numbers, but my quick crazy guess for a 109 is that a propeller blade would pass in front of the barrel 9 times every time the gun could conceivably fire (assuming 2700 prop rpm and 900 rpm rate of fire for the MG131).

Well to be clear, I'm fine with people calling it a simulator, because it simulates something. However, I really don't like when people say "it's not a game", but it is also most definitely a game. But I digress, sorry. Like I said, the level of realism is irrelevant. But that's my opinion and everyone is entitled to one of their own as well.

The difference between a sim and a game is not in what it is, but in how it is used. It's a game for me no matter how realistic it gets, because I use it for entertainment.

I love the A-10. That said, when on a mission, I prefer the support of (#1) AH-64s and (#2) AC-130s.

Example from page 14-22 of the DCS Ka-50 manual: So over max takeoff weight even without Iglas.

Max takeoff weight. The combinations with Vikhr/Rockets, Rockets/Rockets, and Ferry tanks will put the aircraft over max gross weight with full fuel and full 30mm ammo. The top line (half 30mm, 4x Igla) must apparently be for air-to-air engagements only, so the less weight the better...it's obviously nowhere near max gross weight.

Weight.

AH-64D block III was renamed to AH-64E, they are the same helicopter.

Takeoff and landing is usually handled locally by a terminal controller located at the airfield where the system takes off and lands, thus getting around any latency issues. And again, other than takeoff and landing, it's virtually all autonomous/autopilot.

Yeah the problem with our pilots is that they don't like to fly with their feet off the pedals, it just isn't going to happen, and you have to have your feet off the pedals for the yaw channel to be engaged. Pitch/Roll are always engaged for us.

Fair enough. All of my experience is from MTV1 and newer. I've never seen the altitude channel disengage from changing altitude with pitch inputs...it just eventually maxes out the altitude channel's authority and stays that way until the channel is disengaged with the trim button on the collective. To be fair, it is very rare that we use the altitude channel.

Altitude channel only disengages if you press the collective friction release button on the collective (friction effects are not something that is really able to be simulated well), not just by moving the collective. And while the heading channel is fairly accurate, I wouldn't call it "rock solid". I mean, it's rock solid if you're in nice straight and level coordinated flight to begin with... EDIT: I will add that video games never EVER feel just right to people who fly the real thing. I think they get pretty close, but the real thing has just way more "feeling" to it, as you could imagine. Hard to explain what I really mean, but I figured I'd try.

Since when do drone pilots "fly" drones for more than the first and last 30 seconds of each flight?

I loved "Stick and Rudder" and I really think it does help with my real-world flying. Not sure about sim flying, but I suppose it can't hurt. I wish I knew of a helicopter-oriented version of it, I'd love to read it. Also, I have flown backwards (over the ground) in a Piper Archer, so check that block. Also didn't like "Apache" very much, but to each his own.

The cabin doors slide straight back, they don't have to go out at all first. Besides, I don't think it's allowable to open them or close them with much forward airspeed, they need to be opened at low airspeed and pinned in place (just a single pin that locks them in the open position.

I don't remember there being any difference with the doors opened or closed, but I have not gone 120 knots with them open, either. This is in a Bell 412, but I don't think that matters.

Well, since 1995, the M109 has been upgraded to the A6 and now the A7, and it's better than ever. So I'd say that history has clearly answered your question with a big "no".

Proper terms in the U.S. Army are "Shot" for missile or rocket engagements and "Firing" for gun engagements. But that's the "official" line and individual units and crews will usually just come up with their own terminology. Basically, as far as the U.S. Army is concerned, as long as the communication is concise and effective, it's good enough.

It only has one use: To ensure that the Engine N2 is being properly governed to 100% when the throttle is fully open. It has no use in-flight.

PT-22

Thanks for re-opening this 7-year old thread!

You don't have to hold the trimmer. But when you start turning the knob on the control desk to center the trim indicator (the white bar), you will need to input opposite cyclic to counter the movement in the hydraulic actuators, and that's easier to do with the trimmer button pushed in. In other words, if the trim indicator has drifted over to the left, and you start turning the centering knob to the right to recenter it, you'll need to input left cyclic or the aircraft will start rolling right.