Steve Davies

:thumbup:

Thanks. I'll take a look at this now.

As I said, it exists *between* MIL and MIN AB. I advance throttles and read 100% RPM on the tapes. I see c.840 TIT and c.950 PPH but burner is not engaged. Now I advance the throttles all the way - nozzles open, burner lights off, PPH and TIT remain the same.

On the gauges, Eldur.

Again, not sure if bug or by design, but Jester doesn't appear to automatically sequence steerpoints.

It appears that there's a sweet spot in the throttle travel between MIL and afterburner where FFH increases dramatically, but the nozzles remain closed the AB does not light off. You can therefore remain in MIL, but be consuming fuel as though you were in MIN AB. Not sure whether this is a bug, or whether it's a very clever simulation of fuel flow increasing prior to AB light-off. In any case, given that I glance at FFH to indicate whether the AB has lit, I noticed it and thought I would raise it here.

I advance the throttles to MIL and then immediately retract the flaps. Makes it more manageable to then get the nose wheel off and climb in a controlled manner.

I think that's very true. While I really don't like Jester (it's programatically too limited, and the dialog just irritates me), the rest of the module is out-of-this-world good. I am actually a bit sad that HB didn't get to call dibs on the Strike Eagle.

I'd still like to hear more from Victory on the subject, though. After all, he is the only one who has first-hand experience of it...

Yeah, and it's MPRF in the more modern radars that makes all the difference. To quote from one of my own technical sources (APG-73): "MPRF detection is not as good as HPRF, but clutter problems are reduced. Doppler filters are still used to determine target velocity but filers are range gated into bins. Targets are only compared to the clutter that is detected in its range bin".

I have edited my post to qualify that I was talking specifically about contacts on the beam :) Somewhere I have a Doppler diagram for the APG-73 that shows this stuff visually. Will try to dig it out and post it.

We're making progress!

Thanks for the explanation, N.

This stuff is absolutely not something I claim to speak with any authority about (beyond knowing, because I have seen it, that co-speed targets show up just fine on AI radar sets that date from 1970). However, I think that you may be missing the fact that for beamed contacts the radar is filtering out returns that have a Doppler shift (in technical terms, the frequency of echoes for these radar contacts increases), not filtering out returns that have no shift (frequency of echoes remains the same).

Ah! So, what is this co-speed filter that HB have implemented? I expect that they have good cause given that they have the manuals?

Yeah, that might be it. I suppose that operating at sea, timing and marshalling would allow deconfliction. But if they were shore based, they must have had to have some capability.

Indeed. I know the APG-73, APG-65, APG-70 and APG-63 have no issue with co-speed radar contacts. Ref. the AWG-9, it does raise the question of whether the F-14 guys ever flew a radar trail departure or arrival... perhaps you can ask one of your SMEs?

I stand corrected on the AWG-9, but the limitation for 'modern' radars in DCS is incorrect - I have spoken directly with ED about this, and they've acknowledged it. Thanks for the info.

From the video: "The two examples, where it disappears, shows the weakness of the pulse Doppler". No, it doesn't. One example (the first) shows the weakness of the pulse Doppler. The other (second) shows the weakness of ED's radar simulation. IRL, co-speed targets show up on a PD radar just fine, and I really wish ED would fix this.

Can’t speak for APG-73, but it certainly is displayed on the RDR page for the APG-63/70 series of radars.

Sphinx? Yuk! You’ve done a great job putting this manual together. Keep up the good work :thumbup:

Pretty sure he flew Tomcats, so it might be that it was also true in practise?

Loved this. Thanks!

There is no such thing as a default position. I think this might be what is creating the confusion. The starting position is determined by seat height, how compressed the seat cushion is, and how upright the pilot/WSO is sitting, and probably a range of other things. This is not the same as a 'default' position. From there, a coarse alignment is made in vertical, lateral and yaw axis based on the crewmember assuming a comfortable seating position. There is no limit (the manual doesn't specify one, at least) as to how much the alignment is corrected. That has been very brilliantly answered in pictorial fashion on the previous page!

Thank you :thumbup:. Probably around 30 rides total, c. 20 of which were F-15 and F-16. I no longer work as a photojournalist, so with the odd exception where a squadron asks for me by name, that stuff is in the past!