Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Croaker47

  • Birthday 10/24/1990

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, F:AF/BMS, IL-2 1946/Blitz/BoX, FSX, RoF, WOFF.
  • Occupation
  1. My RIO commands also stopped working after the update, with accompanying opening and closing of the radio menu when I hit any of the PTT buttons. EDIT: Just plain restarting my game seemed to fix it somehow, so that was strange.
  2. They aren't. Request Launch is what you use after landing on the carrier when you want to take off again. It has no verbal indications, just that the carrier crewmen resume their normal places on the Catapults, which they just did when I used VAICOM for it.
  3. I see it on mine, and I'll test it in a second. Did you ever do the keyword export?
  4. Noticed that today while doing the landing tutorial.
  5. Ah, so you're trying to get the ADF on a 0-180 radial during a runway course overfly? That might have been what confused me when it told me to reference the RMI. For some reason I thought the ADF and the RMI were connected.
  6. The manual mentions using the RMI on approaches using solely the RKL-41 ADF. I know I can use the RSBN for approaches, and that repeats on the RMI, and the RKL-41 is doing its thing when I'm in the pattern, but I was wondering what the priority is for the RMI. When RSBN and ADF are both on and tuned to the correct frequencies for an airfield that has both, does the RMI pointer point to the RSBN station, or one of the NDBs? Does the RMI pointer point to an NDB in the absence of an RSBN input?
  7. That would seem to be the case, since changing it in the options had no effect. As a note I'm using Open Beta.
  8. I had this one as well, same deal, only in that particular training mission.
  9. Can't seem to figure out how to get this to work, any tips? Is it implemented?
  10. Easiest for level flight is the VVI on the aircraft. Another way is to match the AOA from the top right to your HSI by putting the aircraft on the correct position on the heading tape. I'd use the forst method, and confirm with the latter, though. This becomes more of an issue at night than anything else.
  11. Well, of course it is biased. As for cheap and low cost, and things like that aren't typically things I'd see a US fighter pilot hearing without cynicism (Ex-F-14 pilots come to mind, possibly). Alas, he doesn't seem to spend time on that, so moving on. He apparently didn't like the IRST. I'd imagine it would be more effective as a system with GCI, but GCI isn't something I'd see a NATO pilot appreciating (A fighter pilot, in their eyes, is probably akin to a captain on a ship; they get all the info, and call all the shots as mission commander). NATO pilots are given information by various sources, not explicit direction; that brings us to the next point. Other than that, handling issues, even with good maneuverability, hampers Situational Awareness. Workloads like dealing with all the manual settings, and awkward avionics, while being given orders from a controller on the ground are things I'd see adding stress to an already stressful environment. I'd see it being fairly difficult to get a picture of a situation as it develops without great memory under stress or constant reminders out-of-plane. AMRAAM aside, I can certainly see where his bias comes from. Does it make the MiG a terrible plane? No, but it does make it different enough that it can be seen as inferior to your personal/professional doctrine. For myself, I think the plane is neat, but I'd rather be strapped into an F-16 if I had to bet my life on one.
  12. The Su-27's handling when fly-by-wire is bypassed is awful (It's a pain to control). Its maneuverability gets a boost (When you manage to control it, it gives certain advantages). A plane that is difficult to control, can still move through the sky well, just with pains taken by the pilot. That section you bolded taken as a whole instead of sound-byte'd gets you the meaning.
  • Create New...