r4y30n

Hard to imagine they were that lazy after the rather complete feasibility study done for the F110 proposal. Look up “F-14 Re-Engining with the F110 Engine.” In regards to inlet testing: “The test aircraft had complete dynamic and steady state pressure inlet rake data available which allowed accumulation of extensive distortion data.”

Not sure what the technology level of the aircraft has to do with the depth of simulation… The F-15C has fancy AMRAAMs but the WWII Spitfire is definitely simulated in more detail.

I don’t think it should be open source to users but there should definitely be that level of transparency between ED and 3rd party devs.

That’s fair, some of us just don’t have the time or the will to coordinate with others online. I know it means I’ll only ever be a medium talent DCS pilot but I’m okay with it so long as I’m a step ahead of the AI.

The Air Warfare Group on YouTube has a series of BFM fundamentals I’ve found pretty useful. They do a good job of showing mistakes as well as successes so you can learn to recognize if you goofed and, when possible, how to recover.

If it comes in real steep doesn’t it risk beaming itself?

There are a couple studies floating around the internet investigating engine/inlet compatibility of the F110 and none raise any concerns. And as far as scheduling goes, the engines wouldn’t work properly to begin with if the scheduling wasn’t updated, particularly the bypass created by the gap between ramps 2 and 3. Just take a look at how low ramp 3 is when subsonic in the A vs the B.

P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough. S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft. Sorry, couldn’t resist. You mean ACLS?

Are you disengaging with the toggle switch? Have you tried overriding by chopping throttle to idle or going to mil/max?

+1 He should see data link contacts as clearly as we do and react appropriately.

The purpose of the auto sweep schedule is to minimize total drag from the wings at all times. If you’re changing sweep away from the auto position you’re pretty much guaranteed to increase drag. That’s why you sweep them back before the break, to maximize drag for the turn.

TISEO seems likely since it’s effectively the same hardware as the TCS in the F-14.

Sure, the tail is not mechanically connected to the stick and inputs are transmitted “over a wire,” but that’s like confusing the F-14’s boost mode for TF30 engine control with FADEC (throttle lever position transmitted “over a wire” to the engine). Wanna know something that is FBW on the F-14? The roll spoilers. Because they can be commanded to max or min position by computer without pilot input when appropriate (ground braking, inhibiting when wings are swept) as well as summing inputs when appropriate (DLC mixed with roll input). Yes, Fly-By-Wire literally means input is sent over wires but there are other requirements, too. Like having a digital computer with full authority over control surfaces rather than analog systems with only limited authority to modify the position commanded by the stick. Electronic not electric, computer drives the plane, rather than making reactive adjustments to pilot input.

Will the new FLIR tech be applied to missile seekers, as well? If they were changed to a contrast lock using the IR imagery then reliability would become more dependent on environmental factors as in real life. Could also be a significant hit to performance, though…

No, that’s actually how modern IRSTs and missile seekers work (imaging focal plane array sensors). The old ones likely had the equivalent of one pixel that would be scanned like radar but with a mirror instead of a dish.

In most cases you won’t notice a change. Try not to think of the MCB circuit breaker as “giving” you more thrust. The TF-30s make about 17,000 lbs of thrust each, normally. While the MCB is open they make about 14,000 lbs each and that will happen under a handful of conditions listed above but it’s generally only open for a few seconds at a time. There’s a circuit diagram in the NATOPS detailing all the conditions and timers. Anyway, pulling that breaker just prevents that drop in thrust under those conditions but may lead to engine stalls.

Yes, a PAL lock is P-STT

Oh, the polarized glasses are for civvies. Randolph also took over the military contract for HGU-4/P non-polarized glasses from American Optical in 1978.

Well if you want standard issue… https://www.randolphusa.com/collections/the-military-aviator?usf_take=360

Let’s say ED agreed to share all the SC assets. They won’t work on the Forrestal without setup and testing by HB and who’s gonna pay for that? Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see it happen as much as the next guy but remember, the Forrestal is a free carrier, much the same as the Stennis is a free carrier.

Fair, the actual definition is pulling power, I misspoke. However, it’s still proper procedure to go to mil on touchdown and I’m curious if you still get an EGIW if that’s the case.

I think the misconception here is that EGIW means you cut power on touch down. What it really means is that you had insufficient power to recover from a bolter, were that to happen. Not moving the throttles was the cause, not the solution. You should be going to mil on touch down.

Lack of hydraulic pressure after shut down seems plausible. With the engines running I don’t think there would be any movement, given the irreversible controls.

Which MiG? Each M39 has pretty much the same rate as a Gsh-30-1, the F-5 just has two of them. Together they’re roughly comparable to the Gsh-23 in the MiG-21 but the 20 mm round has a ton more velocity so you don’t need crazy lead. The obvious downside is a lot less explosive so you need more hits.

Side note, I always found it curious how easy you could rip the wings off in game in the early days because the eddy damper should prevent loading G that fast.