mvsgas

Pedal turn 9zbi8FrtczA?start=268

In a nut shell, is people being people, now a day. I got a 3600 and mine boost to 4192 on air using stock cooler without any issues. But people see it advertise to 4.2 boost and try to make something out of nothing. To me is a great CPU, with very good price and this is just typical nonsense of now a day. Outrage people trying to find out what to be outrage about.

Maximum noseup and nosedown pitch commands are generated by 25 and 16 pounds of input, respectively. Roll commands are generated by a maximum of 17 pounds in cruise gains and by 12 pounds in takeoff and landing gains. When using the switches/buttons on the stick, inadvertent inputs to the FLCS are possible. Upon landing, at high speed and prior to NLG WOW, forward stick pressure in excess of approximately 2 pounds results in full trailing edge down deflection of the horizontal tails. This horizontal tail deflection reduces wheel braking effectiveness. At high speeds in the three-point attitude, forward stick results in excessive loads on the NLG which can lead to nose tire failure and possibly cause structural failure of the NLG. During some autopilot mode, Attitude corrections can be initiated through the control stick steering by applying force to the side stick controller. Roll attitude may be changed by exerting a lateral force exceeding 2 pounds. When the new reference attitude is attained, release the side stick controller. To correct pitch attitude, a longitudinal force exceeding 3 pounds shall be applied. To temporarily decouple all autopilot inputs to the control system, depress paddle switch on the side stick controller. Release of the paddle switch reestablishes autopilot hold mode references and the heading command on the HSI. Rudder pedals, A high-gradient feel spring provides the pilot with artificial rudder feel. A force proportional to the amount of rudder deflection is required on the rudder pedals. The rudder pedal force is 15 pounds at breakout and approximately 110 pounds at maximum deflection.

I like the call sign story at the begging of this video, just hit play, video is set up.

Crossbleed and ducts? Not sure if I understand the correlational.

I do not have the F/A-18 module and my only experience with the F404 was in the F-117. I do not know if this is intended behavior or accurate. I am just curious about the modeling withing DCS. I wonder if the differences is with throttle off, your telling the engine computer to shut down the engine ( fuel off, ignition, etc) So the engine computer will do what is suppose to turn the engine off. Meanwhile, when using the fire light, you are just starving the engine out of fuel, so the engine computer is actively attempting to relight the engine, the guide vanes will be position for best air flow, ignition should fire up and other thing the computer will be doing to restart the engine, just it can't restart since there is not fuel. I am sure it can be very simple in the game to simulate this behavior ( if it is intended or accurate) by simple showing different RPM. I know the F404 versions in the F-117 was super reliable. On one occasion, I pilot landed without defects, when we did the daily engine down load, we found it had 17 stalls, the pilot claim he did not even notice. So that version of the engine where very robust.

Without Google no. From the left, front ( not sure the version on most) - Canberra - B-66 - B-47 - KC-135A - B-57 Top center moving down on second row - B-36 - EC-121 -F-80 with radar and rocket armament on the nose ( can't remember designation) - F-86D - F-100 (with larger tail and refueling probe) maybe early C or D versions Bottom center 3rd row - F-102 - T-37 - Don't know Top, 4th row - Don't know - KC-97 - F-84F - F-86 ( but nose looks fatter and a larger center fuselage, almost looks like a FJ-2) - F-101 recon versions (not sure which) 5th row, from bottom - F-89 - Don't know - C-130A - B-50

Which RPM are you guys using? External view info bar, Fan or Core RPM?

The look like Block 52+ here is a list. Noticeable differences from DCS F-16C USAF, after CCIP, circa 2007 - Larger NLG tire - Larger Lights on intake - Different ECM/RWR package - F100-PW-229 engine - Digital Video Recorder (DVR) camera ( In front of the HUD, replacing AVTR system) - Different air scoops around the aircraft - Conformal fuel tanks (CFT) - Enlarge dorsal spine housing different equipment Many more equipment, weapons, and capability differences.

The Central Display Unit ( CDU) was part of the USAF Reserves and ANG F-16C ( block 32 and below) System/Software Capability Upgrade (SCU) 8 starting on 2013.

O. K., what is the thrust class/range of the -400/402? Is it different that what I posted? Does the manuals refer to each engine separately or the same?

All numbers are estimation since I do not know the specific F/A-18C GW and F-16 GW is normally mention with full internal fuel, AIM-120 on tips and full ammo load. Not sure if F/A-18 GW includes the same. Also consider there is not specific thrust in any engine or weight on each aircraft, only range or class thrust. So, might be different on each individual aircraft/engine. F/A-18C F404-GE-402 17,700 to 19,000 lbs thrust range 35,400 to 38,000 lbs range. F-16C F110-GE-129 29,000lbs thrust class F/A-18C GW with Full internal fuel (JP-5) two AIM-9X and full gun ammo ~ 35509 F-16C GW with Full internal fuel (JP-8 ) two AIM-9X and full ammo ~ 27186

It depends, F/A-18C has several engine types and so does the F-16C. You would need to be more specific.

So even tho the paper did not used real aircraft, and the aircraft they use to simulate had different horizontal stabilizers. Even tho the aircraft simulated had a different Flight control computer with different logic and different limiter. Considering the flight control computer and many components that send information to the computer and how the computer use that information has change. Even tho the aircraft have different weight and balance, different engines, the angle of the flight control can travel is different, the paper is still relevant to you. Ok thanks.

Guys, I got a question. To clarify, I'm not contesting anyone post: bbrz and sk000tch; You guys are having your own conversation and I not arguing any of your points. I am simply curious about something. Does anyone think the NASA paper 1538, written in 1979 has any relevance to the DCS F-16? Specially considering the aircraft has change drastically since then and the study did not used real aircraft, only simulated aircraft. I am just curious, Not looking for anything else. I don't have a secret agenda. Just curious if anyone thinks that paper has any relevance.

If I understand what you mean, most HOTAS button in the F-16 will change functionality depending on software, Sensor of Interest (SOI), main mode, the weapons, how long you press the button, how many times you press them, etc. For example: - uncage will do different thing with the AIM-9, AGM-88, AIM-120, etc. - TMS forward over set time or double pressing it in different radar mode has different effects. We will need to see what ED models. ( In terms of OFP and other software in the F-16)