Marsvinet

The gun pipper being above the velocity vector is wrong. Razbam has pointed this out themselves long ago. But the problem is/was at the ED side. Apparently they can't set the angle of a gunpod relative to the waterline of the aircraft. Since the Harrier points upwards a fair bit, you end up with the gun shooting quite high. Good for dogfights, but pucker-factor inducing for strafing

According to the incident report, the engine suffered from compressor stalls during the pull up ("... motorn pumpade kraftigt under upptagningen."), so yes, the flames could be related to that. Could be mixed with some afterburner maybe.

"Don't look back, I think the LSO has a boner" - Jester, 2019. No clue how I got that 3 wire with my track ir freaking out, but damn Jester, you have a way with words.

I think you swapped to Black Hot (BH) mode instead of White Hot (WH). This can be changed using one of the OSB pushbuttons, somewhere on the right side I think. Or it can be changed by pressing sensor select right when the TPOD is in HTS mode.

If it is built to bring down a boat, wouldn't it shred a poor little tank? Jokes aside, if I remember correctly, the F version is basically the E warhead with the IR seeker of a D version with some modifications so that it will target the waterline of a ship. So they have pretty much the same effect on target.

There are definitely US Harriers armed with AMRAAMS. Look at this video, at 1:07 and 3:42 there are clearly AMRAAM armed Harriers, from VMA-231 according to the video description. Even the thumbnail one has them!

I have used that tool since it was first posted. It still works. QFE is important for some weapon deliveries. In many cases radar ranging will be used instead but having the QFE set as a backup is always good practice and is even obligatory for the retarded bombs. SO preferably no default numbers. But if you have a preplanned mission the target QFE is presented in your kneeboard.

I just looked at it ingame. Seems there is a space problem relating to the wing strut gears. There is very little clearance between a possible Mk-20 and the strut. Don't take this as truth, it is just what I can see. The NAVAIR manual can probably back this up too.

Aren't rockeyes quite a bit wider than Mk-82s? I guess that it is a space problem rather than weight since the space between all pylons is not the same.

Thanks for letting us know, Decoy!

Is there any update to this, or atleast some answers to the discrepancy?

If I remember correctly the RB75 uses an old maverick flight model, they might not have updated it yet. Right now you can almost use them as long range AA missiles.

About the asymmetric braking part, make sure you pull the stick back when you brake hard. The nosewheel loses a lof of effectiveness when all the pressure is put on it during hard braking. I think it is even part of SOP when doing thrust reverser landings.

Looking in the log, it finds the right folder, but I can't find anything telling me that it found a custom cartridge file or anything like that. It creates the automatic targets alright and those work. Attached the log. dcs.txt

I don't know if this is a bug or just me doing a stupid. If I try and load the custom cartridge placed in ...\Saved Games\DCS_AJS37\ it doesn't load that cartridge. It loads the default cartridge in the DCS World\....\AJS37 folder. But even if the default file is deleted and replaced with the file I want to load it still loads the default. That is by using the option "1 custom cartridge 1" in the kneeboard. From other posts around the forums it seems there should be a #7 option to use, but it doesn't appear for me. I don't know how to replicate this since it seems to work for everybody else. Any ideas?

You shouldn't be cycling the airbrake. Either keep it in our out. Keeping it out in the harrier means you can actually slow down when the plane is light and the tanker flies slow. Can't speak for the flanker, but the same probably applies there. Keeping the airbrake out also means your engine will respond faster, since it's already at a higher RPM to keep the same speed.

I second that AFC ruins more than it helps. One thing that can help is to remember how the aircraft pitches up and down when you raise and lower throttle. I don't remember which way it is, it's just muscle memory at this point. But keep in mind that your pitch changes with throttle changes. At lower speeds atleast. Kinda like a helicopter.

I'm definetly on the C130 side. Probably the most multi-role cargo plane there is. H version is in service in many countries, and performs a myriad of roles. It scratch the itch of many people in this thread, even the carrier folks! Since we know they are already thinking of a helicopter, I won't mention those possibilities. Go to the Heavy helicopter thread for those. A C123 would be an acceptable alternative, but only because of the radials!

Same here, I use the rotary on the right side of the throttle. Jittery sometimes, but it is precise enough most of the time.

This is not a product I will buy. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here or that it was a bad choice. I have full trust that this is a well made sim, and that the people who buy it will fully enjoy it. It's simply not something I feel like flying. What was a bad choice is the way to release it. The cryptic hinting and teasing only made people start wishing for their favourite aircraft that could fit the hints. When all those wishes turned out wrong, and they are shown something way off what they were expecting, I fear that you have lost the respect of a chunk of the community, and destroyed your possibility to perform anything like this in the future. Compare this to the announcement of the Yak-52, people weren't gathering pitchforks for that (as much at least). I hope it isn't like I see it, but I hope that you guys at M3 have a feeling for how this community responds to things like this. I wish you good luck with this module.

Have you made sure that the volume on both radios are turned up high enough? I had that problem before. Took me way longer to find than I want to admit.

I'd pay a lot for any kind of -Hawk, but i'd pay even more for a pavehawk. I love the kind of mission they run. Long range, CSAR stuff.

I'd take any Hawk, any day. But I remember reading that Sikorsky isn't that happy about allowing people to work with their IPs in a digital manner. But if it were to happen, i'd suspect we'd get something simpler, systems wise, like a old UH60A or L, but a Pavehawk would probably be my favourite too.

Well, it helps when the thing hitting is telephone pole sized, instead of a street sign sized. Though I wonder how cool it would be if it worked to fire sidewinders against ground stuff

Now that somebody mentioned the Seaknight, it would fit well with all the naval planes Razbam are creating. Plus it could transformed into the swedish/japanese versions of it(or atleast have swedish splinter camo, love me some HKP4)