AKarhu

Finnish Hornets are (normally) rated to 7.5 g just like any other. "Paddle" is not used in air show routine as far as I am informed but it would work like in any Hornet, adding some 33 % to the CAS-scheduled limit g. I am not sure where the wing fold being an issue comes from, and perhaps it can be in case of gross overload (I doubt that though, based on how lift distribution over wings generally is). But in terms of regular in-service fatigue, the central fuselage "barrel" structure, into which the wings attach, has been the main source of issues, requiring some repair slash reinforcement earlier in their life than what was predicted by US service experience. The cause for this was speculated (at least in public) to be that of aircraft spending more time in maneuvering flight than in cruise due to very close proximity of the training areas to the airbases they primarily operate from.

As it turns out, even the slight asymmetries of the airframe itself having resulted from whatever history in crime the individual frame might have, can require enough of trimming to be mentioned in the log. The CAS in the F-18 is actually a relatively open-loop design in comparison to something like an Airbus, as more desirable handling characteristics in maneuvering flight could be achieved that way (particularly with control systems available at the time).

Just as a general observation, when it is told that something can... ...or similar, it is usually a good time to check if some text from a brochure is being mistaken to describe real, expected, and repeatable capabilities of the thing in question.

For what I have read of cold war era ground-controlled intercept scheme using data links, sometimes a bit wrong picture seems to get conveyed because of the ambiguity over the word 'control'. Sometimes the scheme is described as if the interceptors were flown ("controlled") directly by the ground control, as if they were drones of sorts. Whereas I read the word 'control' with meaning more similar to that in the context of air traffic control: now fly that way to intercept, to simplify. Obviously, it would not have been a huge technical leap from there to data link the vector directly to the aircraft's heading bug, so to say, and couple the autopilot to follow the vectors automatically, if so desired. Whether or not this would classify as fully automated, ground controlled intercept from pilot's perspective, I guess, anybody could argue one way or another, depending on one's point-of-view.

I'd take a practical guess that for most missions spent entirely over blue water, the accuracy of the inertial was mostly really just good enough. If you are supposed to keep station over the deep blue, being thereabouts within some miles would do just fine for practical purposes. And if navigating into somewhere, you'd just need to get close enough to be in range of navigation aids near the said somewhere and more or less where you'd expect to be, and then get a more accurate fix from thereon.

Remember as well that aircraft maneuvering limits are not in place primarily to protect against snapping wings or any other part of the aircraft if exceeded, but to protect the designed fatigue life of the aircraft. The ultimate loads that would immediately break primary structural components would very much exceed anything that would be reasonably thrown at the airframe in service, and some damage of lesser degree would certainly be sustained before reaching those loads (that 15 g mentioned sounds reasonable to me). Even without abnormal numbers of over-g events, any airframes of age that are from relatively high stress usage tend to accumulate assorted repairs in their structures, adding weight and inspections if nothing else. In case of the Hornet, the center fuselage 'barrel' area tends to be the primary area of concern, as far as I am informed. Recorded over-g events do result in an airframe inspection and may result in damage being detected if severe enough, however, they are unlikely to result in anything that was detectable by the pilot in any direct way after the incident, unless the limits were exceeded repeatedly over the time and aircraft not receiving proper attention accordingly. In the sim, where you effectively fly just a single sortie, this of course has a little meaning (aside a dynamic campaign, tracking statuses of the individual airframes, obviously! )

I believe a longer range launch with motor burned out and the missile coasting in would make a case point where the threat is unlikely to be detected by UV-based systems such as CMWS, as the sensors are effectively flame detectors, sensitive to missile's exhaust plume (or other suitable flames).

This is indeed done after the first engine shutdown but prior the second one is shut to check proper operation of the switching valves. You should not get any abnormal dings or X'es for the flight controls when hydraulics re-configure as the hydraulic pressure of the system supplied by the shut down engine drops. The pressure gauge in the cockpit shows the brake accumulator pressure. It will not drop during normal shutdown. It is not done to specifically bleed any pressure from the system, and is not 'required' for the stabs to droop after shutdown - they'll do that very much on their own!

Call me somewhat confused, but why should it?

It is mainly a nomenclature thing, but as some Boeings were mentioned, one can think that antiskid is the system and locked wheel protection is a function of it. Basically, on 737 the "skid control" function of the antiskid system monitors wheel's deceleration whereas "locked wheel protection" of the same system compares the wheel speeds in pairs (inboard and outboard wheels, that is) and releases the brake pressure from the slower wheel.

Interestingly, approximately 100 % of pilots first learn to fly in aircraft with no HUD. Many, or I'd say most, of pilots outside the military never fly any type that comes so equipped.

Yes, I do pretty much know what those look like - both from the air and when walking on.

I can't speak for South Atlantic, but something like that is quite common where (sea) ice is a thing in the north. As the ice grinds away any vegetation and such, what is left behind is a band of barrow rock faces and boulders. Obviously, it is more 'detailed' feature up close, but such a band is still a thing in reality on many coastlines. null

It has always been interesting to me that just about always when you read just about any comprehensive writings of significant flight operations, based on first hand sources in real shooting war, almost never one finds one without technical issues playing some sort of role. If not in eventual outcome, at least in how things ended up happening. The lack of this randomness of dynamic nature, precisely what Heatblur is apparently after, makes the simulated world all too clinical even if having a dynamic campaign with proper logistics. For a war not only consumes the supplies the logistics are providing, but also the providers and those who are provided with them as well.

Indeed, this system should be brilliant if we some day get the dynamic campaign. Overspeeding or over-g'ing the aircraft would have proper consequences in readiness rates, as the aircraft would have to be inspected in the best case and pulled out from the line for repairs in worse. And on the other hand, sustained high tempo air operations with limited downtime for maintenance could be modeled to result in lowering readiness rates, reduced reliability, and with aircraft having to be operated with faults open. Oh, just brilliant.

After just a brief test I must say that this is absolutely brilliant. I can't even fathom how many buildings are drawn in those cities - and how it is handled with perfectly reasonable frame rate on my mighty i5 2500K + GTX 1070! The potential of the engine here is sometimes rather underappreciated...

Well, not really. Except technically at the pole, twice a year on equinoxes. In fact, I hope DCS renders the summer nights somewhat more decently than it is usually done. Even where/when the Sun does go below the horizon, there still is a kind of daylight quality in the lightning as the sky remains rather lit. Very little of that yellow sunset palette, unlike the way it is usually rendered as a tropical sunset feel.

Just a slight correction for a cold war scenario. Luckily, it is also represented. Now, where's Draken... I guess there is also some... timelessness in the context of the campaign setting of the good old Jane's F/A-18.

One thing to make it different from the other maps is that there is no night during summer and no day during winter.

In the Hornet, the wheel axis is not fixed in orientation relative to the gear leg but pivots slightly during the retraction sequence to make everything fit into the fuselage. A mechanical linkage is supposed to 'plane' the wheel properly during landing gear extension and it is then held locked in orientation by linkage's geometry (the correct position of which is monitored by a dedicated proximity switch; indication of planing link issue was, if I recall correctly, a flashing gear indication). If you float around some without proper weight on wheels or, for worse, apply braking, the wheel is subject to various dynamic forces and moments pushing and pulling it into whatever directions. One theory is that this increases the likelihood of 'shaking open' the geometric lock of the planing link. My understanding is that the cases of planing link issues are mostly associated with combination of some looseness in the rigging of the linkages and 'floaty' landings. Note that due to Hornet's landing gear design, it is possible to float the aircraft with the wheels in contact with the ground but with very little weight on them before the gear struts 'kneel' properly.

It is, in fact, very common to see values quoted in percentage to exceed 100 % - or sometimes to come short. Usually the 100 % reading refers into some design reference value shared by different variants and designs, only recently it has become a norm to use readings that are in format of percent available. For instance, some very common CFM56 turbofans (snip from the TCDS): In case of some turboshafts / turboprops, where the power section is effectively driven to a constant speed, my understanding is that slight variations from the design speed are used to fine tune the torque and vibration characteristics of the entire powertrain for a specified power output. You know, as the same power can be produced with higher speed and lower torque or vice versa, and all that good stuff. While it is, in principle, a choice of just calibrating the indication, it also makes much sense to keep every mention of, say, 100 % to refer into same actual rotational speeds everywhere. Including in technical documentation and all that.

Maybe from six to ten years from now, we are all accustomed into de facto virtual reality. And all this nonsense is common sense then. I'm still running the DCS on an i5 2500K & GTX 1070, so I need to resort into reality in what comes into context when having difficulties using those ancient flat displays!

Acknowledging the risk of adding confusion, a perfect setup of one's view is indeed somewhat of a compromise on a PC when using a conventional display. With usual viewing distances and display sizes, the field of view tends towards 'unrealistically' wide with most of us, me included. Geometrically, my display's size and my viewing distance would not result in me quite seeing the full width of the whole upper front panel in the F/A-18 cockpit, if I adjusted my field-of-view to a realistic setting. This 'realistic setting' would result in a field of view that would appear as if viewing through a window, or borders of one, that are of the size of one's monitor display, and at the same viewing distance. Obviously, anyone who's spent any time in some of these cockpits, or equivalent ones, know that the displays (HUDs included) are fairly large and rather close to one's face. But as we want to avoid the tunnel vision necessarily resulting from the angularly realistic field of view, we tend to prefer wider view, in turn resulting in excessively small instrumentation and symbology. Indeed, I recall many who have never sat in the real cockpits before, seeing them first time either in reality, or in properly set-up virtual reality, exclaim how surprisingly small the pits are, and how the instruments are right at their faces. That's kind of the result of getting used to seeing them through as if a wide angle lense - almost a fisheye in some cases.

Yes, you'd need to use the zoom function to alter the size of the symbology (and everything else). Remember, like in physical world, zoom changes the apparent size of the objects regardless of their distance (both the HUD combiner assembly, being maybe some 30 cm away, and its symbology, being effectively infinitely far away, are magnified in same proportion). Moving back and forth, on the other hand, changes perspective, which has no effect on the apparent size of the objects far away. If the symbology is not covering the appropriate field-of-view through the HUD, you are viewing it unnecessarily close. You can see the same in the video I linked: sometimes the camera is brought right next to the combiner glass, so that its frames are mostly outside the field of view of the camera, but the symbology remains the same apparent size it would if viewed from the seated eyepoint.

Yes, precisely. No, there is no such thing. Think it like that HUD imagery is overlaid with the external view, 'floating' basically infinitely far way. Just like the reticle in a reflector sight does. This way the angles displayed are correct, targeting information overlays the actual target and so on. Note that the HUD camera that captures the HUD video on many military aircraft for mission review is basically centimeters away from the assembly and it still captures the correct imagery, but the HUD frames are not visible in its view. There is something called 'eye box' that your head should remain within to view the HUD correctly. If you move your head sideways out of it, you'd clip the image from the side. If you could back your head into the seat's headrest, you'd clip the image all around, as the image projected retains its angular size while the combiner assembly, quite obviously, would not, due to shift in perspective. If you are properly seated in the cockpit, your head naturally sits in more or less correct position to view through the HUD. Edit: see here.