drPhibes

Oops. You're right about the Ka-50. I haven't flown it for 1.5 years, so I completely forgot about that. In principle i could be possible, but it all depends on which I/O signals you have available on the different systems. I would imagine that the GNS430 supports some kind of data output, either via serial NMEA messages or a proprietary binary protocol, but interfacing this with an existing IMU that isn't built for it isn't a trivial task. So if the Mirage INS supported any kind of GPS augmentation it would probably already have the GPS receiver integrated. And IIRC, the Gazelle does not have an INS. The NADIR system is a doppler navigation radar. Edit: sniped! By several folks. That's what you get for writing half of the post before and half after a 45min meeting...

At the few airshows with modern aircraft I've visited, all planes that weren't flying were covered up with intake and pitot covers, and all munitions on display are dummies. Regarding live munitions: in 1978, an F-5A from Rygge AB launched a live AIM-9 during a simulated attack on Torp airport during an airshow. After that the RNoAF stopped using QRA aircraft for airshows...

Neither the Mi-8 nor the L-39 has an INS, so no. In certain integrated systems GPS can be used for providing correction data for an INS (combining the short term accuracy of INS with the long term accuracy of GPS, via a kalman filter), but the only aircraft in DCS where this is theoretically possible is the A-10C (the only other INS equipped aircraft (Mirage 2000) doesn't use GPS).

Not a tutorial as such, but here's a video about the real thing. It could be quite usefull for sim use, depending on how accurately BST have cloned the GNS430:

If WAAS is the only SBAS supported in the 430 it won't do you any good in Normandy or Georgia.

Safariland flight sim gloves: https://www.safariland.com/products/holsters-and-gear/gear/gloves/duty-and-traffic/specialist-gloves-17626.html#sm.0001m1sxw0zu9d9gx0e23q5hfxxr3 ...or a version of the Garmin GNS430 GPS with a small name change to avoid licensing issues.

Not necessarily. Whether or not there is a pre-purchase period is up to the developers. The Polychop Gazelle was released the same day they started selling it. All we know for now is this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3130849&postcount=1154

The GG12 GNSS receiver used in the ABRIS is available in a GPS+Glonass and a GPS only version. So GPS is always an option.

Awesome! Thanks a lot :)

TACAN (or VOR/DME for the civvies; functionally they're the same thing although they operate at different frequencies) is an enroute navigation aid that provides bearing and distance to the beacon, not a precision landing system. A TACAN approach can guide you down to visual minima, but for CAT I minima or below you need either ILS, MLS, SCAT1/GBAS, TLS or one of the different types of proprietary military laning systems (TILS, ICLS etc).

Yup. Unless ED place Navy ICLS beacons at all the airports (like they did with the TILS for the AJS37).

The Warthog grip has no tamperproofing (i.e. "warranty void if broken" stickers) anywhere, so there's no way they can tell that you've opened it unless you screw something up. And if you do screw something up you shouldn't be trying to get them to fix it for free anyway.

Have you tried searching the "Official updates" section on the forums? ED also has a FB page.

[Rant mode on] A seven page speculation thread about an aircraft Leatherneck have said they weren't making (5 months ago; a blink of a eye in "DCS-time"). I guess that's the ED forums in a nutshell... [Rant mode off]

Don't underestimate the manic OCD of the rivet counters. I have seen people seriously complaining about things not looking right inside the wheel wells and other completely inaccessible (unless you're studying it in the model viewer) areas of DCS aircraft.

The fact is that nukes, with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd ones ever detonated, are purely strategic deterrents. They serve no real purpose other than preventing "the other guy" from using his against you, and are completely pointless in a simulated battlefield where global thermonuclear war isn't a possible outcome.

How is TACAN related to a discussion about ICLS and ILS?

A brief (and somewhat simplified) guide to inertial navigation: IMU: Inertial Measurement Unit. A sensor package with accelerometers and gyroscopes. INS: A computer system that uses the data from the IMU in order to determine your current position. It may be completely independent of external signals, requiring manual position updates (including your initial position) using known landmarks, or it may be integrated with GPS (typically using a kalman filter, which combines the short term accuracy of the IMU with the long term accuracy of GPS). First of all, all the IMU does is to measure acceleration in the X, Y and Z axis. From the acceleration measurements, you get speed by integrating the acceleration, and distance traveled by integrating the speed (but this is typically done by the INS; the IMU is just the box with the sensors). In order to keep the accelerometers aligned in inertial space, you either place them on a gyro stabilized platform (gimballed IMU), or use complicated transformation matrices which require a lot of computing power (strap down IMU). The A-10 uses a gimballed system, and during alignment, the platform is positioned in the orientation which gives the minimal initial value for the X and Y axis accelerometers (i.e. minimal gravitational acceleration in the sensor's axis) and the maximal value (1g) for the Z axis (-Z to be precise) accelerometer. The gyros will measure the earth's rotation, and thus a baseline rotational value (measured over a relatively long period of time) is needed in order to compensate for this in the INS.

I had a quick skim through the E/F flight manual, and I can't find any references to regular ILS there either.

To be precise, the ABRIS system in the Ka-50 uses a Ashtech (Magellan/Thales) GG12 receiver, which is available in both a GPS only and GPS+Glonass version.

I would guess so, judging by the signs right below the table they're on.

Nice piloting indeed. With nose damage like that I wouldn't be surprised if the localizer/glide path antennas were damaged as well (they are located right below the weather radar in the a320). Does anyone know if this was the case?

The AT-6 Harvard/Texan is another example (although not fully supersonic at the prop tip, there are regions of supersonic flow, giving the characteristic rasping AT-6 sound).

That's an interesting question. I've read somewhere that the bleed air for the blown flaps (and the "puffers") is taken from the hot side of the engine (i.e. where the water is injected), so I guess it's possible that this could lead to ice accumulation when the steam condensates on the cold upper surface of the flaps. But that's just a wild guess.

Sorry to nitpick, but the landing gear lever is a switch with a large knob attacked to it. Not a lever where you have a range of landing gear positions between fully up and fully down. Using an axis for this function is not only pointless, but it is "wrong" (i.e. it isn't that way in the real aircraft). it makes about as much sense as using an axis for the ejection system or the canopy latch. We're talking about the request for a landing gear axis, not the nozzle position...