ShadowFrost

What does the JF17 RWR display look like?

Supposedly the JF-17 system architecture has no problem integrating various weapons. And on WIKI (I know extremely reliable) it says they can carry them. But I think for Pakistan/any operator it would come down to if there is really a benefit worth the effort of enabling the aim-9s on the aircraft. Due to maintenance, spares, and whatever complications that would come from such an action.

Yeah, still would like to tell jester more specifically. Can't say it works too well for me.

Currently Jester is rather useless for radar elevation... On the medium elevation setting, say at 10,000 feet 100 miles TWS scan. He will cover the altitude range of 0-35 thousand at 100 miles. The problem with the elevation adjustment is the next setting up, middle high, at the same range will scan 50-99 thousand. It appears that the elevation commands are too large of an adjustment for the radar. It would be nice if this was corrected to be smaller increments of adjustment. Say middle is 0-35 thousand. Middle high is 15-50 thousand. And then high is 30-70 thousand. Then with a bindable key, like several other options in the jester menu have, to increment up or down by a degree to get jester to fine tune the radar.

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#link-4a-c-data-link Edit- I could have sworn I saw it here, can't find it now...

Thanks for the information guys, yeah I read in the manual that it was only the E-2... Didn't know if maybe the E3 had backwards compatibility or not.

Does anyone know the default frequency for the E3A/ E2-D? As the knee board currently doesn't work.

Cobra creating a thread..... wonder what it'll be ?

I really hope development is going well for this aircraft as I am really looking forward to it, keep up the work. Can't wait for it.

93

Does this mean we may get some RIO footage within a week?

My guess is different team members (with different roles as well, artists, coders, etc.) are working on the nonessentials (training missions) while they finish the RIO cockpit and whatever else they have to do before they release the f-14. So it's not like its being delayed, but because its not ready yet, they can implement other items they didn't think would be originally in the first release.

A good video discussing various forms of EW and the systems and countermeasures currently know about.

Make sure the jettison switch isn't on. The black/yellow covered to the bottom left of the weapons panel. If that isn't the case, try using the keyboard bind as to eliminate the possibility of it being a joystick problem (such as when you hold down the trigger it pressing several times, thus firing both weapons)

how to keep seeding for those who will need it?

Guys it always done the unkown module thing, give it about 15 minutes and a DCS update will be here and then itll work.

The magnetos are bound backwards for the spitfire. Whatever I bind "magneto on" this switches the magneto off while "magneto off" switches the magneto on. Should be a simple fix for you guys, good job otherwise.

I agree, I think when anyone says "It can do anything you want it to do" it is always a biased statement. I think we are all reasonable enough to know that all aircrafts have flaws in some way and almost none of them (I've yet to find/see one) can do "anything you want it to." I guess he never wanted to push the aircraft into a dive? Because the early spitfires (even mentioned in the video) had a serious problem with such an action. While it is a good video I think the relevance is a little low as they were both early versions of the spitfire and 109 and flight characteristics (relative of one another and not) changed with later variants. One example being the early 109s (particularly the Es) had unfavorable stall characteristics while the G models and later can be argued to have some of the best stalling characteristics of the war.

Yes, there are normally procedures for each aircraft to open the canopy before a ditch. Even common practice for navy aircraft on all takeoffs and landings was to keep the canopy open. I was referencing the damage sustained from bullets and etc. during the flight that prevented them from bailing out because of their jammed canopies. There were the very few cases of lucky individuals whose aircraft held up well enough for them to make a survivable crash landing or either land at an airbase when such damage occurred. The crumpling on the P-47 was from damage sustained by 20mm rounds from the 190.

It was indeed a rare occurrence for an aircraft to have a jammed canopy sustained through battle damage but it did indeed happen. From references and articles I've read it tend to be canopies you slide or roll backwards to open (not limited to those though). Take for instance Robert S Johnson flying a P-47 and got hit by several rounds that twisted the metal of his fuselage preventing him from exiting the aircraft. He was then continuously fired upon by a fw190 which gives credit to the durability of the aircraft. For the question of how often, I don't have exact numbers but it was very small amounts. Another case involves a German pilot Adolf Galland whose 109 canopy was jammed when he got jumped by a pair of spitfires. Another incident was when Alan Deere (flying a Spitfire) was shot by a 109 and his canopy jammed and he was only able to open it after landing in a field. There was another instance (from the book "A Higher Call") where a German pilot shot a Yak that caught fire and the pilot could not escape because of the jammed canopy so the German pilot put the pilot out of his misery. But unfortunately I think all data on this subject would probably be skewed lower then the amount that actually occurred because of when a pilot found out their canopy was jammed in flight it was normally when the pilot was trying to get out because their aircraft was no longer in flying condition. Anyways, it would be very cool to have but I'm no programmer so I wouldn't know if the work required would be worth the result.

Do you think jammed canopies could be added to the damage models of the WW2 aircraft? (If they are not already planned) I know it's not extremely needed just it'd be one more little feature to add to make it that much better of a simulator. But anyways, the news of a new damage model is still very exciting.

I remember reading some of that NACA study about the slats a good while back. I went to the link to read some and I couldn't find much information to read. (probably doesn't help that I don't speak German) Anyways, the main problem is there is absolutely no pre-stall buffeting in the 109 currently which isn't how it's supposed to be from everything I've read.

From reading pilot reviews of the 109s there shouldn't be any smoke or flash visible at speed. When the aircraft was stopped there was visible flashes but no pilot (from what I've read) mentioned there being visible smoke as well when the aircraft fired it's guns in a stopped position. Also the lack of pre-stall buffeting in this patch is probably a mistake. Reading pilot reviews, the 109 tended to give good warning before a stall of the aircraft and this aspect will probably be adjusted in the future.

If any of you guys are curious of what the pilots had to say about their 109's that they flew (though their were no K4 references that I saw, the G6 is a very similar 109) I would read this article that I found. Gives you a nice little insight into what it was actually like for a pilot to fly one of these things. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ Maybe reading some of the sources could also be a good idea...

I think your right, I did some more testing and I'm sure that there is no "leaking" of fluids. Maybe there is a damage model for radiator (like I experienced earlier) maybe not since the event wasn't recreate-able but I know white smoke from the radiators does happen. Normally this occurs from an overheat of the engine and not from damage. But from watching others (and doing) I can't see the supposedly leaking radiators having an impact on the aircraft's engine. We flew a 109 more then 40+ miles home at 2,000-6,000ft which would have been more than enough time for the fluids to leak out.