Baz000

how about "it depends" then as an answer lol

Ah, thats that stupid Kindle for yah... It has a mind like HAL thanks for pointing it out tho really didn't realize it. It always wants to write fpm as rpm too! Yeah, my apologies about that normally I spell it as "lose" with one O meaning to not be a victor in a battle as an example. "loose" spelled with two Os meaning to have something not tight.

well, he was talking about a Vulcan bomber vs. a F-16 in a climb... I thought i'd provide some answer to him i'm guessing he must be a Brit if he randomly throws out the Vulcan bomber out there vs. this oh, he said "full chat" that was a dead give away to me that he must also be a Brit too.

same physics apply, yes but the aircraft are getting lift in 2 primary ways, one is from the shear brute force of the engines and the other is the lift from the wings and other lift producing surfaces (like pancake on F-14) my guess in your bomber v F-16 the bomber could get to a much higher max altitude than the F-16 but the F-16 will climb much faster but stop at a lower altitude. My reasoning is, a Vulcan bomber has huge wings compared to an F-16 but alot of weight which will reduce its acceleration performance in a climb. Mind you this is not taking into account engine limitations or pilots needing pressure suits. Also, F-16 pilots don't like to cruse above 30k because the wings have such reduced lift to them if they are loaded up with junk on the wing pylons that they have to travel faster to make up for the loss of lift, they prefer to be around 25k-20k. for the cute bunny to come out of the rabbit hole also, have you guys heard of the "coffin's corner" when it comes to flying? It is more of a problem in airliners than fighters.

The way I understand it is that the one 20% heavier needs to fly with more power(thrust) added to maintain stable formation with the other, so technically speaking the one that is heavier is actually flying at a higher thrust output than the other. The difference is the relative positioning and closure between the two cancel out because of the added power compensating for the added weight. So, right from the beginning the two aircraft are not equal in performance... What is happening however is the forces are balancing relative between the two so they are able to maintain stable formation... But, with that said one aircraft compared to the other is already starting off at a greater power setting if you look at it comparing the two in just engine performance right off the gate. With that said however, at the start of the maneuver even if they both had zero thrust so they start at a truly equal state in engine performance alone... The overall result still doesn't change, one aircraft vs the other has to fight more to climb and it is due to the additional magnitude of the downward vector from the 20% increase in additional gross weight, this same effect also causes the climb to be at a slower rate in comparison to the lighter aircraft, given the parameters set in the theoretical example. In regards to phugoid oscillations- its oscillations in the longitudinal axis (tho it can happen laterally as well) which can be both short and long term, it depends on aircraft design how "stable" the aircraft oscillates but this is where the aircraft passes the point of trimmed equilibrium in how I can best describe as a porpoising motion where the aircraft will climb and descend... Usually with a constant AOA but with changes in airspeed and altitude. Am I understanding the aerodynamics correctly? Also, when experiencing such it is possible to have the pilot enter into PIO by unintentionally overcontrolling the aircraft... In this case, freezing control input to the aircraft and allowing it to stabilize generally will allow such oscillations to diminish and return the aircraft to a state of equilibrium. I hope i'm understanding that correct.

This is commonly taught in the training aircraft too apparently to aircrews. According to parts of that USAF commissioned report I read.

maybe not 2 feet, I did mention that for some reason that dimension did come to my mind IDK, I fly so many planes in DCS... However, canopy deformation is a thing and that post you linked to on F-16.net does mention it. "This was not the whole story though. Sammy was flying in and was heard by his wing-man say "oh no" then silence. They later found out he hit a turkey buzzard which caused his canopy to flex enough and either break his neck or knock him out. He continued to glide until he belly flopped into the ground. No additional communication was heard even after repeated calls from this wing-man before hitting the ground. The point was if he had been sitting lower could this have been avoided and is that the reason the guys are sitting lower now?" If you want to know about pilot body clearances inside cockpit, the USAF did a research study on it when they considered relaxing body size entrance requirements for Undergraduate Pilot Training (AFI48-123) to provide equal opportunity for both genders. The research described here was undertaken from 1997 through 2000 to determine the smallest and largest people that can safely and efficiently operate each current USAF aircraft. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA405598.pdf

So, the only visual steering cue I have up front is the horizontal line at the top of the Lantirn repeater display that has the moving vertical line, that when centered has me flying on centerline to the designated target to attack it. That is the one and only visual indicator I have up in the pilot cockpit, right?

The only bomb fall steering guidance to the pilot is the repeater, right? And Jester's aural cues. I can't use the HUD bomb fall line or the VDI (if I don't have the display repeater on) just wanna make sure I understand that correctly.

No, I'm coordinating the turns kicking in rudder in the direction of the turn gradually... I really find I don't need a tremendous amount of rudder to do this tho, I keep my heels on the ground and push pressure on the rudder with the ball of my foot. I have my rudder set to be linear in DCS so no curves or dead zone. As far as the VSI goes, yeah I realize there is actually lag in that particular instrument. However, cross-checking it with the altimeter shows initiation of a climb develop. Also there is a manner to fly instruments using a cockpit scanning method, your attitude indicator(VDI) would normally be your primary instrument as it gives you immediate information tho in the case of F-14 there is some lag even in that display... But it uses the AHRS so there is less messing about with it than your standard analog type attitude indicator (like the standby one we have) There actually is a technique to using the VSI for flying, even tho it has instrument lag. You don't even fool around with this stuff until trying to get an instrument rating. Anyways, with the VSI needle no greater than +-200 fpm you can fly the aircraft fairly precisely using just slight changes in attitude by introducing slight control pressures on the stick (think 2 fingers and thumb method of flying) interestingly, that +- 200 fpm also corresponds to the tolerance of your autopilot hold too! Honestly, a lot of this falls under piloting techniques. If you are ham fisted on the stick you are going to find you are having a hard time doing things like maintaining level flight at a constant speed and climbing at either a constant speed or rate, flying formation or air to air refueling. Wanna know what rate of decent to use to lose that 200 ft downwind after your level overhead break? The rule of thumb in instrument flying apparently is x2 the difference in your current altitude and your desired altitude because you need to make an accurate correction as promptly as possible. If less than 100 ft off target altitude then use 100 fpm on VSI, the VSI will stabilize as long as you hold your attitude and speed. So, for example 800 ft desired for the break and you're at 875 ft the rule of thumb there is to utilize a 100 fpm decent to get on target (so very very light nose forward pressure on the stick) Then let's say you are now dirty and rolled out on downwind for the boat, you wanna get from 800 ft to 600 ft rule of thumb is take the difference (200 ft) and x2 to get 400 fpm. So descend at 400 fpm at onspeed AOA and level off at 600 ft, I can't remember right now but I think it said to begin level off 50-100 ft prior to reaching your target altitude. Oh, also forgot to mention that in a previous flight I was fooling around with flying circuits in the pattern by just kicking the rudder to initiate a bank with my hands completely off the stick. So, limited ability to have adverse yaw as an explanation if I'm directly forcing the rudder into the direction of the turn and holding it stabilized when established in the turn. The whole idea was I was trying to understand the power corrections necessary to maintain level flight at onspeed AOA with or without any bank angle, in a semi-dirty state(gear and flaps extended, no speed brakes or DLC) My thinking was, if I could learn and develop the habits necessary to manage the plane like that and fly it precisely hitting my marks along each checkpoint in the pattern... Then adding DLC and speed brakes configuration later on will only need me to manage the additional power need because of obviously the increased drag and fine tune that, but not my overall flying technique and getting a feeling for the plane in the landing pattern. Except maybe in the B model because of the RATS system I'll be in for a surprise how much less thrust I have. Also, if it was adverse yaw wouldn't I have an indication of that on the turn/slip indicator? And wouldn't I notice the nose slicing around? Or is that Dutch roll I'm thinking of that does that... Adverse yaw is like the tail going left but the nose wants to go right, yeah? In the case of banking using the stick, it would be like the rear end of the plane wants to go down and to the left if you just give left stick only, but the nose wants to go up and to the right, correct?

Got 2 words, motive flow Precisely, the aircraft that is heavier is at a disadvantage because it needs to do more "work" but under the parameters of that theoretical question it can't change any parameters to do more "work"

I thought DCS has R-60s for the MiG-29 and Su-25 already? Anyway, this sure looks like R-60s to me...

I forget where I heard or read about it, but it was recommended after canopy bird strike testing that the pilots set their seats to have their heads no higher than a certain height below the canopy (2 feet comes to mind for some reason, rings a bell) During bird strike testing of the canopy they found the HUD combiner glass would completely shatter from the canopy deformation if struck directly in that area. If struck higher, they found the canopy would deform about 2 feet IIRC. The idea being if the pilot kept their helmet out of the deformation margin of the canopy, in the event of a bird strike there would be no direct force impacting the head of the pilot (the glass shattering into the face of the pilot from the HUD combiner seemed to be less of a concern to their testing... Possibly because they expect the pilot to have their helmet visors lowered during takeoff and landing phase of flight when threat of bird strikes are most probable) The HUD glass destruction looks like it would be very unpleasant to personally experience, it looks like it is vectored straight into your face and lap.

My screen goes half black on the left side

I get this exact behavior in the F-14 IA mission "takeoff" in Caucasus... The black screen covers the whole left side of my monitor and sorta splits it in half.

IRL the FAA has established standards on just how far away each different type of light should be visible, if it needs to be at certain angles or 360 degrees and if it is steady lit or flashing, etc. I know for night time FAA waiver for drone flying for example, you need a flashing light visible for a minimum of 3 statute miles. "§ 107.29 Operation at night. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system at night unless - (1) The remote pilot in command of the small unmanned aircraft has completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under § 107.65 after April 6, 2021; and (2) The small unmanned aircraft has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so."

Ashore: What I've been doing has been turning only the anti-collision lights on startup during the day, and the taxi light when I enter the active runway. At night, I have everything on steady and bright and the anti-collision light on on startup... The taxi light I turn on when cleared for taxi or if in formation to signal I'm ready to taxi. Boat: I don't turn any lights on during the day time, maybe once in the air I may turn on my anti-collision lights but even that I do rarely. At night, everything on steady and bright and no taxi light on... cycle the lights master switch fwd to on for catapult launch in place of salute. Another thing you may see, is in formation flights everybody turns off their red strobes/beacons anti-collision lights except for the plane furthest to the rear. The purpose of this is to not have blinding flashes of light in the faces of wingmen flying off you less than 2 wing spans away... It is really annoying and distracting and poses safety of flight issues. Also, in IMC the strobes, beacons anti-collision lights can be shut off if it poses a problem... They can also be turned off to not blind traffic on the ground as a courtesy to other pilots so they aren't blinded by you. They obviously go back on on entering the runway. Also, as part of the FAA see and avoid program... Pilots are encouraged to turn on their landing lights even in day time when operating in high traffic areas to aid in mid air collision avoidance.

I was flying around in the B model with only gear and flaps extended (no speed brake and no DLC) trying to get a feel for flying it at onspeed AOA both in level flight and in turns in roughly a landing configuration. Having a hard time keeping the VSI and altimeter near rock solid in a stabilized level flight while at onspeed AOA. It absolutely is do-able, it just is taking me a lot of focus and undivided attention and time. It's like very slight power corrections maintain AOA but in order to stop a trend developing in the VSI and altimeter I have to give a far larger correction to keep the plane level and ends up messing up the established AOA considerably. The other thing I noticed, and I can't replicate it all the time, is that when initiating a turn 30 degrees or less while dirty as above... Sometimes the instruments indicate a climb starting (VSI and altimeter concur with each other) or stabilized level flight, like as tho the plane is floating briefly while starting into a bank. Unless there is something in particular peculiar about the F-14, the expected behavior just from airplanes in general is that as soon as a bank is initiated and there is no accompanying power or pitch correction applied. I would expect the aircraft to quickly go into a decent. To combat this, normally I would apply the estimated necessary power correction needed just immediately prior to initiating a bank to compensate for the reduction of the vertical lift component. And while in the turn, adjust power accordingly to maintain desired onspeed AOA along with pitch. And use bank angle to manage rate of decent by shallowing or steepening the bank angle of turn in concert with power corrections and small corrections in pitch. Basically, trying to juggle all these variables to arrive on roll out at desired altitude at on speed AOA on the correct heading. It seems currently, at least with the B model I can't add even a small power correction before executing a turn for final approach for example. Lest, I want to fight a climbing or stabilized level "float" tendency while established in the beginning of a turn. I'd imagine if I was fully dirty, obviously I'd have considerably more drag... Need a higher power setting to be established in level flight at onspeed AOA, but I'm thinking the difference In approach speed is around 10 knots? Anyway, just something odd I noticed sometimes when flying around with only the gear and flaps extended.

I wouldn't mind it either, but from past experience this isn't really a subject that garners much attention. Certainly not like how many times DLC comes up in this forum.

Around the boat at night, all lights activated and on steady and bright except no landing / taxi light on(unless specifically requested by LSO to aid with landing in IMC conditions). Lights kept off on the deck until activated by the master switch on the left throttle indicating a go for launch salute to the shooter (since at night you can't see a hand salute from pilot) off the boat, i'm not sure... I'd stab at a guess of all lights on and set to flashing until taking the active runway then you set them to steady? In the day time just anti-collision light on? At shore you would use the taxi lights obviously... I turn them on in the day only once cleared for takeoff... At night I have them on once cleared to taxi. IDK, does that seem to make logical sense? Dunno what they actually would do at shore... I'm fairly confident at the boat it is night/IMC all lights on and set to bright(but not activated by the master except as a "GO" for cat launch) except the taxi light. In the day time IDK, but I don't think they have any lights on at all during the day off the boat... Maybe they turn anti-collision light on once airborne tho... At shore, what I said was pretty much an educated guess. I'm far less confident on that than at the boat. For the F-16... I think all lights set to flashing day and night until taking the runway then they go to steady, collision beacon set to 1 unless in a formation then you set it to your assigned position in the formation. That is my best educated guess, some of these things are controlled operationally by field and squadron SOPs so i'm sure they sometimes vary. I use the taxi light as an indication if I have been given clearance or not. Once I get clearance, I turn it on (in the day time) if ever I have to wonder if I have been given clearance for takeoff (which usually I don't have to wonder such things but task saturation is a thing and is very possible if doing an IFR departure) then I just have to look over at my taxi lights switch and i'll know right away, as long as I built a habit of flipping the switch when given clearance. It comes in very handy far more for landing while you are busy in the air tho... Day or night, that is really where it helps is while flying an approach vs. Being on the ground... But I get into the habit of flipping them on both on the ground and in the air to help remind me that I have been given clearance to taxi/takeoff/land. Also, there are these lights on the nose gear that indicate your AOA and tail hook status(it is flashing if the hook is not lowered, continually illuminated if it is) to LSOs on the deck of the boat (it is one of many things they can look at for visual reference) which is why the taxi light is normally off for landing except when called specifically for to be activated by the LSO during IMC conditions.

When you do your drag racing with Hornets make sure you guys are in full burners and unload to 0 G

I actually just read about generally the effects to expect on gear/ flap deployment in the FAA instrument flying handbook FAA-H-8083-15B, I have an older book... Here it what it specifically states in relation to instrument scan during slowing down for gear and flaps deployment, in relation to a GA plane tho so keep that in mind, a Tomcat isn't a GA plane. "...Having learned to control the airplane in a clean configuration (minimum drag conditions), increase proficiency in cross-check and control by practicing speed changes while extending or retracting the flaps and landing gear. While practicing, be sure to comply with the airspeed limitations specified in the POH/AFM {in our case natops or DCS manual} for gear and flap operation." "Sudden and exaggerated attitude changes may be necessary in order to maintain straight-and-level flight as the landing gear is extended and the flaps are lowered in some airplanes. The nose tends to pitch down with gear extension, and when flaps are lowered, lift increases momentarily (at partial flap settings) followed by a marked increase in drag as the flaps near maximum extension." "Control technique varies according to the lift and drag characteristics of each airplane. Accordingly, knowledge of the power settings and trim changes associated with different combinations of airspeed, gear, and flap configurations reduces instrument cross-check and interpretation problems." Bottom line is it says here is the trend you can expect, but actually know about your aircraft you are actually operating and study the POH. I'd think flaps should behave the same regardless of gear position, but when the gear comes down you should get a cumulative effect of more drag added vs than just with the flaps extended.

na, must be his DFCS on the D model

Having the carrier crew directing you onto the catapult makes it so much more immersive, authentic and quite frankly helpful... The biggest aid to you is that they tell you how far forward to come to have the launch bar seat into the shuttle properly. You don't get that with the decks devoid of crew, so you need to play around a little bit with trial and error with inching the plane a bit forward... But you can do it without having to resort to using external view, in case you are on a multiplayer server that doesn't let you for example.

sorry, I thought this was the bugs and problems section of the forums... Didn't realize it is only for 3rd world problems like world hunger and global peace my bad you can see it in this video I made for a different purpose: