drPhibes

Why use an axis for a function with two discrete states (up or down)? The landing gear lever in the plane is simply a SPDT toggle switch with a long lever attached to it.

I'm not fluent (HA HA) in fluid dynamics, but my educated guess is mass/inertia and parasitic drag due to friction when air passes over the blades.

There is no target tracking in the Viviane system. You'll have to keep the crosshairs on the target the old fashioned way.

That sounds like the TLS; Transponder Landing System. I'm not too familiar with this system, and it's not mentioned in ICAO annex 10, but apparently it's certified for CAT I operation by the FAA. It has certain advantaged for sites where regular ILS doesn't work optimally, but I don't think it has been widely adopted (at least outside the US). Here in the frozen wastelands (Norway) we use a GBAS system (SCAT-1, not GAST-C/D; at least not yet) for precision approach at the airports where terrain conditions preclude the use of ILS.

IIRC the ILS knob shown in Wags' video had 20 channels, which fits well with the AN/SPN-41A ICLS. Regular ILS was originally a 20 channel system with (LOC) frequencies from 108.1 to 111.9MHz with a channel spacing of 200kHz, but this was expanded to 40 channels (with the new channels placed 50kHz above the existing) sometime in the 1960-ies. As for the technical aspects of the ICLS system, it's actually quite similar to the TILS system in the Viggen, with pulse coded scanning microwave beams, as opposed to the space modulated VHF/UHF signals of the regular ILS system.

You can agree until you turn blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that updates won't be released until they are ready for release. Contrary to what some seem to believe, fixing bugs isn't simply done by a magic code generator or automatic debugger. Pushing out half-finished fixes usually does more harm than good.

Yes and no. You're right about the low hangar ceiling at certain bases (or at least the hangar door at Säve), but for improvised- or temporary bases like the road bases, the folding fin is not an essential (or even useful) feature. For rapid deployment from a road base you need the aircraft to be ready to fly. Which it isn't when several maintenance folks are needed for erecting the fin. A folding fin on the DCS Viggen adds as much to the gameplay as an animated engine change or an animated conscript cleaning dead bugs off the canopy.

The Kubinka tank museum might be worth a visit.

Yeah, I'm sure the developers have no pride in their work, and don't want to share project progress with their current and/or future customers. Constant nagging from people on forums must be the only reason they ever do anything... (and yes, that's sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it).

Sorry for going into "grumpy old bastard"-mode again, but what is the point in asking if there are any news about product x, y or z? News are published here and/or on FB ("Poly-Dynamics / Miltech-5") when there is something new to report.

You mean right next to the helipad on the flight line? Yup, definitely oddly positioned... What would a chopper be doing there? (and if you didn't get it, please have your sarcasm detector re-calibrated)

80GB here, with all terrains and modules except CA, Hawk and C101.

The update IS available. I'm downloading it now.

TM Warthog: Pitch & roll: 60% saturation. No curves. CH Pro pedals: 55% saturation. No curves.

Uhm, no. Although I haven't seen any confirmation of the actual size of the map anywhere, the map shown at the TBS site (link) ends at approximately Gwadar, Pakistan. Which is 613km (380 miles) from the Indian border. And the actual strait (or at least the narrowest part) is 1220km/760mi from the Indian border. So that's like saying Washington DC is literally next door to Orlando. [/nitpick mode]

There's no need for a separate open beta install. to quote myself from a bit earlier: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114030 Paragraph "Updating or Switching an Install Between "Open Beta" and "Release" Version Branches..."

Update to the open beta branch (see skatezilla's guide somewhere on the forums).

No. This is not one of Wags' "what's that [xxxxxx] doing there" teasers. From GA (who made the video intro):

Here's an other one from Sola Airshow: I had the pleasure of getting up close and personal with this aircraft at Kjeller a few weeks ago. An awesome aircraft that looks great both on the ground and in the air. Unfortunately, the Spit is now back home at Goodwood, wearing its old paint scheme. And a small correction: the original RAB was indeed painted like this during the war, but only for a few days. The flag strips on the wings, spinner and rudder were removed. The RAB initials on the fuselage were kept.

Many good points there, however I have a few comments to a few of them (after all, nitpicking is one of my many hobbies): * So you can't refuel from anything else than a KC-135 or KC-10. Not really an advantage seeing how many different probe-and-drouge tankers there are around the world compared to flying booms. * It's true that aircraft performance may be relevant for this point, but deployment numbers are important. You'll find more Volvo drivers with speeding tickets than Lamborghini drivers with tickets. * Unless this was due to a F-18 not being able to shoot down the same plane, this doesn't really count as an advantage for the F-16. Being at the right (or wrong) place at the right (or wrong) time isn't necessarily related to aircraft performance. After all, the F-16 was the first of the two to be shot down by SA-3 and SA-6 SAMs. * And the 18 is flown by a Navy/Marine team you may have heard of. The fact that different branches of the US military use the equipment they have available isn't really relevant when comparing the types. * ...as simulated targets for all other aircraft :P * The reason AIM-120s are commonly carried on the wingtips is to improve certain parts of the aircraft aerodynamics. Typically flutter/vibration reduction under certain flight phases.

But aside from the Fighting Falcon (not Viper) being iconic with lots of operators worldwide blah blah blah, what does it do that the Hornet doesn't?

Wow. That sounds like a pretty strange way of doing things from a logistics point of view. For quick field replacements, you'd need to stock up on two different types of engines instead of just one. Conversion from RH to LH rotation (or vice versa) may be possible, but it's a lot more time consuming than just fitting a different reduction gearbox to a common engine type. Does anyone know the rationale behind this design choice? You would need one extra gear in the reduction gearbox in order to reverse the direction of rotation, which does (at least theoretically) result in a slight increase in power loss in the gearbox, but I can't imagine that it makes much of a difference in actual use.

Yup. Everyone knows that the F-18 is better. It's simple math; 18 is 2 better than 16. That's a 12% increase. Case closed.

Here's a handy tool for calculating the magnetic declination at various places around the globe: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#declination I checked Bayeux, which gave a result of 0° 28' W (or 0.46° for the decimal degree folks), with an annual change of 9' (0.15°) East. And as for not knowing the term declination despite having 2 ATPLs: terms used by pilots aren't necessarily the same as those used by surveyors or cartographers. Neither is wrong or right; they're just two different terms for the same thing.