Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MurderOne

  • Birthday September 13

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. CV-41, while not CV-59, employed the same equipment during the same time periods. IFLOLS would not be tested until 1997, and fleet-wide deployment would not be until 2004. CV-59 was decomissioned in 1993. CV-41:
  2. Just experienced the same in Syria with the F-14A.
  3. Correct; the IFLOLS used for FCLP is non-adjustable, where the shipboard IFLOLS is adjustable. "Once set up and calibrated, there are no moving parts to the unit. Shipboard units are much more complicated as they must be gyroscopically stabilised to compensate for ship movement. Additionally, shipboard units are mechanically moved (the "roll angle") to adjust the touchdown point of each aircraft. With this adjustment, the tailhook touchdown point can be precisely targeted based on the tailhook-to-pilot's eye distance for each aircraft type."
  4. So, without being technical, and because I'm only on my first cup of coffee, I will say, regardless of whether they follow the same glideslope, the hook-eye distance is different, and the IFLOLS will not be the same between aircraft types. Trapping an E-2 isn't going to be the same as trapping an F/A-18, trapping an F/A-18 isn't going to be the same as trapping an F-14. IFLOLS aboard ship (vs land based for FCLP) are indeed adjusted for both aircraft types and landing weights.
  5. I'm currently reserving my judgment for this issue until I have some more seat time with the latest patch. So far, in my limited time since the patch, I've literally been looking at bad guys on the repeater and Jester wouldn't even acknowledge them on occasion, and other times he seems to find those needles in the haystacks.
  6. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and, thanks to you and your crew for all the hard work.
  7. There's literally an F-14 driver in the turn rate tanked thread that says otherwise. I have personally watched F-14s in the hangar bays getting repairs done for jammed flaps. It's post number 130 in the "turn rate tanked" thread. "11-22-2020, 01:33 PM Originally posted by Kula66 View Post Wizard_03 - are you saying that pilots never used the flaps above 225kts and (at different times) never went above 7.5G as stated in NATOPS? If so, sorry I don't believe you. Yes they did, almost always inadvertently, usually an over speed on takeoff. They also broke things, especially the flaps, and if while a student in training with an instructor on board, they received “downs” and suffered the consequences for their stupidity. The flaps locked out and broke torque tubes, even when operating within the flight envelope. I pulled 8.2 G’s inadvertently while at Topgun. It broke the maneuvering flaps and eventually, an ECS heat exchanger that grounded the aircraft until it was replaced. My wingman also broke his auto wing sweep system due to an over G. You don’t hear these geniuses mention the aftermath of their over G exploits. Full flaps were typically only used in a flat scissors, well within the structural envelope, at approx one G and below 150 KIAS. The torque tubes used a splined shaft to account for wing bending, and operating it under massive G caused failures. Reversing direction was tough on it as well, and the greater the extension, the greater the load on the splines and the shafts. Using the flap handle and ending up with locked out flaps, meaning the wings couldn’t sweep limiting acceleration and speed in combat is a stupid place to be. Must say, I had never heard the story of Dale’s panicked SAM break, where upon he over stressed and departed the aircraft, stalled an engine (gee, I wonder if the MCB CB was pulled?), and ended up single engine, out of airspeed and ideas over Baghdad at night in the AAA envelope. That takes talent that most don’t possess."
  8. While you may be hard pressed to refer to DCS as a simulator, I think the US military may disagree. Sorry, it's not F-14 related, but this discussion seems to have veered away anyways.
  9. Enjoying the A. Note, if you have any VSN mods installed, it will mess with your A cat. I was having similar issues; A Cat showing up in the ME as the old AI version, try to fly it anyways, DCS crash. Uninstalled all VSN mods and everything's peachy. I can't comment on performance, as there are those here with serious aviation minds and charts that are and have been addressing it. I do feel that the high pitch from the engines is not quite there. That high pitch whine/whistle/screech...was nothing short of intense when a real Cat would taxi past.
  10. 90.58% prefer the old forum to this garbage; 9.42% prefer this last I looked at the poll. (308 votes). I truly cannot stand it, and in keeping to how I feel, am NOT checking this place daily anymore. I'll learn about updates and so forth other ways, because they're clearly "going to make this work" and we will never see the old setup again.
  11. While I'm trying my level best to "accept" this "new" forum, it just screams going backwards to me. It's very difficult to navigate, especially compared to the old forum. It reminds me of BBS. It feels generic and soulless, unlike the old. I used to check the forums daily, but I am so put off by this setup that I think that's going to stop. Now, this may or may not be the case, but I believe many "new users" first check out the forums to find their way. The old one was quite conducive to this, and this one is definitely not. Bluntly, this setup SUCKS.
  12. Concur, this is horrendous. Looks like old bulletin board crap, and so far, navigates similarly.
  13. Combining ED miles with promotional pricing (Hornet owner discount) during pre-order, I paid $18.60 on February 18th for the SC module.
  14. Q1: 1 January – 31 March (90 days or 91 days in leap years) Second quarter, Q2: 1 April – 30 June (91 days) Third quarter, Q3: 1 July – 30 September (92 days)
  • Create New...