aaron886

That's a bit like saying a wankel car engine is the same as a piston boat engine. They share some theory but that's most of it.

Edit: Never mind, problem solved. Didn't watch the track.

I don't recall that being an actual dogtooth. Not a lot of functionality that would have on a vortex-generating root segment.

What? A post about the F-35? Cool pic. In case anyone missed it:

Nah. Blue bands, those are inert AMRAAMs.

Stunning. ED's artists really outdid themselves with that specular mapping.

Really excellent, 76th. Regards!

Dude, chill out. Even if he's wrong.

Thanks for posting some photos, it was getting... stuffy in here.

Not to approximate, no.

Re-install the module, sounds like StarForce is just taking a smoke break.

Exorcet, I'm sorry, but it seems like you're just talking a whole lot of nonsense. Faith you've done a good job finding a formula to describe turn radius, but you don't seem to understand the practical application. I get a whiff of BS when I read your posts, so you might hop off the high horse. A "high performance turn" is not completely different, it can still be approximated by the same equation you used before. Bank angle, CL, and G necessarily increase, and by including the changes to these coefficients (CL changing with a variety of factors that would require extensive testing to determine,) you can effectively describe a wide variety of turning performance scenarios. It has little or nothing to do with "elevator" effectiveness (available pitch moment) in a modern tactical jet. Nothing designed with that kind of maneuvering potential is going to be limited in the heart of the envelope by control deflection, rather by deficiencies or compromises in wing loading (read: effective lift production,) thrust to drag ratio (sustained turning performance,) or structural integrity. (Think Tomcat with F110s... so much potential limited by a 6.5G airframe.) It means there is a potential for poor sustained turn performance, but that's not something any of us can determine. That's the stupidity of making wild conjectures about the performance of an aircraft not yet well known. The F-35 could have very effective aerodynamic performance, producing a higher coefficient of lift per square meter of wing. It most certainly utilizes some wizardry that previous generations of fighters did not. Just visually compare the design of the wings... that should be enough to tell you we don't know all that much.

Relatively disconnected from "elevator" effectiveness. That's hardly a problem in tactical jets these days.

I was wondering about that, because I could see the difference in lighting.

If you have such doubt about posting it, why do it? It's definitely inciteful, but I doubt it will be removed. It's illogical, anyway, but that doesn't stop people caring.

So... advertising?

It's really not...

Flogger might be the only other Cold War Russian jet I'd be interested in. Variable geometry, exciting role...

Would be nice if the modelviewer included with release versions of DCS would show collision models. Any idea why it doesn't?

European? Jaguar. Or Sea Harrier FRS.1

Love that idea. That would be chaotic and exciting. I know where I'd take my A-10... as close to the canyon floor as possible. :) Imagine that scenario with a dynamic campaign! -sigh-

I/II here, PM if you have questions or anything. And trust me, I know that icon when I see it. ;) ATP-R for me soon. Cheers

Saitek could probably make a great joystick if they would get away from that awful "spring-and-plate" design that they use for tension. Horrible. Compared to the HOTAS Warthog there's no doubt that this thing is cost effective, but even at 200 bucks it could probably have more parts made from resin or metal. (Would prefer cast resin.)

Which FAA test are you studying for, Shein? ;)

I hope this can be done. I work with Chinese speakers on a daily basis, and I can sympathize with the challenge of understanding English. It is difficult to describe how completely different the two languages are!