G.J.S

Well . . . This is going to be a ‘must have’! Nice work, and much needed to be honest.

It would be great for true mission patterns, but realistically I don’t think it’s possible (atm). There would inevitably be trade-offs, not only that, to “flesh out” say a 800-1000 mile ingress would be hard on computing power. Would you want a bare bones world up to say 200 miles from your target area, or same detail availability all the way? Then units - the more units, the more computing power needed and before you know it, everyone will need to start taking out shares in Cray. Let’s say we go with the bare bones until in the poo option (detail-wise), guarantee some will relish it - long transit, maybe a few AAR hook ups,, then dip to low level for a 80 mile run to target, personally I would love it, I really would, but there will be those that would rather have pin sharp detail all the way, and nothing less. That would only benefit the ‘Cray twins’ with their bang wiz NASA supercomputers. The rest of us would have to suffer a slideshow. Trade-offs. As much as I would like it, it’s not going to happen without a severe graphical abilities overhaul, which may FUBAR other things.

For some reason that I can’t correct on a damn iPhone, my response got FUBARd in a way beyond my control, please ignore this post.

Nope. That’s not how skins work. It would be like trying to move one cockpit gauge from one aircraft and putting it in a completely different one, not going to happen - it’s meant for one only.

Remember seeing this guy on TV years ago when on holiday ‘down unda’, Chopper Read! Laughed my ass off at his skits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSyd-y8saig&list=PLphZoc5Oq5RPirSR4izakFMuaJXIRpjyO&index=1

A lot of things are likely still being refined, but with regards to ground movement versus what you see in videos - perspective? What looks tight on a video may not actually be as tight as you think. Afterburner brightness - this will depend on engine trim, engine age, ambient air and other environmental considerations, so again, don’t rely on videos. In cockpit sounds? Again, using videos as the proving resource is flawed, the recording in videos can be affected by equipment sensitivity, never mind the accuracy of your speakers or headphones. Lots of variables to consider. Havent bothered to look at 9, but I’m guessing you are referring to the rebound stroke of the nose gear as it leaves the deck edge? If so, then that is due to the aircraft being launched with the nose gear in the “kneel” position - as the gear comes out of the shuttle it will extend to normal, and ‘pump’ the nose upward. Also, you may wish to change your ‘interests’ in your personal info chap . . . .

Interesting. . . It just seems a little “last ditch”, when the easier way to deal with a lobbed kitchen for instance, is to take out the platform before it gets lobbed. Why make it harder for yourself?

Ha ha, it sure isn’t that simple. But try it anyway . . . .

I thought the design philosophy was centred around intercepting threats to the carrier at very long range, for instance TU-22 with ASM. If the TU launches, then the fighter in essence has failed. Easier to nullify the bomber, than try and spear the missile.

Inertial navs, by their very definition, can tumble. Imagine trying to gauge your position, through many turns of varying tightness, in level and the vertical, as well as oblique, all different air speeds, different acceleration rates (not G), and come up with a new position after say 20 minutes and be accurate. Not going to happen. Level to the horizon if visible, reset your backup ADI and use that until you can maybe sort the INS. No need to fly with FPM.

Fighters aren’t really meant for intercepting high speed munitions. The 1800kt closure should more than suffice in a battle zone, as manoeuvre ability for either aircraft going beak to beak is severely limited at v high speeds.

Give up GGTharos, you can’t educate pork.

Stop being a Wikipedia-Warrior. That is a public resource, edited by the public, and monitored for accuracy by no one.

Ask me about the Tonka, I had a few years in it. F-14 and Tornado are not in the same league. They both have VG wings, but that’s where the similarity ends. I think he’s thinking about the ones that lift freight trains and levels homes in the American Midwest?

And (because I just can’t . . . ), the glove vanes - pretty sure they were to destabilise the aircraft as at Mach speeds the aircraft is a little too stable in pitch, thereby hindering pitch authority. They could also be selected “out” whilst in “bomb” mode by the pilot, as at subsonic speeds they also acted to stabilise the aircraft a little. Maybe @Victory205 can come in on this regards the vanes? Although, to be honest, I doubt he would want to be having to deal with this amount of sh1t. Also, the G limit thing being a hard limit, passed by no one? . . . The F-4 (sorry IronMike eta al) was limited to 6 positive. I’ve seen 10 transient, and sustained 7 through a little more than half a turn with no ill effects, and no really long downtime as a result. Tornado is a 6.5 bird, and again can and did do more, it’s just with the installed thrust, it wouldn’t be turning with anybody really - more of a hit’n’run mentality.

Working fine for me earlier, have you tried a repair?

You may find this of use, assuming you are having difficulty with the VFR map on a MFD? https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/aero_guide/media/editions/21May2020/cug-visual-products.pdf

Ha ha! Love it! I wish I could take credit for the words in the verse, but that falls to Quentin Tarantino - “Pulp Fiction”, Jules, just before he blows someone away.

So . . . I know the thread there has been closed temporarily, but if you have surefire evidence etc, why not PM one of the HB guys? Instead of giving them several threads about the same thing to try and keep track of? It would likely help them from tearing there hair out trying to make sense of 1200 threads about 12 problems, if you catch my drift.

Impressive! Please add a shot of the finished diorama - this thread is turning into a real pleasure to view. Outstanding work, genuinely outstanding.

. . . . Yep, that’s how engage in discussion about what you feel is an issue . . . .

How do you feel about Indycar?

You realize the T-38c and F-5 are very different animals? That's why each has its own manuals. Also asking for things like this in you first handful of posts is not going to earn you too many points, if you get my meaning.