Slant

This didn't age well... sorry für den Necro. Fands nur lustig.

My guess is radar altimeter. That usually catches people off guard if they're not used to it.

The mirror doesn't work like in a car, it's not meant to show you what the enemy behind you is doing, it's supposed to show you what your aircraft looks like. The angle is fine. I can see the wing sweep and visually confirm my Flaps/DLC deployment (instead of that awful indicator in the cockpit). The position that you showed is not very helpful.

You boltered with the F-14A, rest assured, you're just like us.

FC3 Module net vergessen, Flanker usw.

Diese Welten werden nicht von denen selbst generiert, sondern von spezialisierten Unternehmen. Das ist sonst auch für die civsims zuviel. Leider darf ich hier keine Namen verwenden, aber wenn du dich mal gefragt hast, warum ein schwarzer Hai im Intro auftaucht, weißte jetzt, warum.

Underrated comment. Zivile Flugsims machens vor, was ich will ist, dass DCS nachzieht. Ich will alles.

I'm typically bad at reading EM Diagrams, but what you're suggesting would exceed the structural limit of the F-14 in that chart, wouldn't it? Oh, nvm. That's just the 6.5 limit that everyone ignores... ignore me.

How is it impractical? 1200 is the spin pattern, starting at 2000 feet you have the marshal stack. 800 is the initial, 600 is your downwind... where else would you have the tanker live? You're right, it's the minimum pattern, but it's the altitude that is actually the most practical.

That is for CASE III. The pattern is assigned by departure control, NATOPS talks about a minimum of 2500 feet, but the number may have changed over the years one way or the other. For CASE I/II the altitude is 1500 feet. It's actually an interesting procedure that I'm looking forward to explore if we ever get a KA-6 variant. Section 6.10.1 describes everything, it's a good read!

Ist kein Hebel, ist ein Drei-Wege-Switch auf der Throttle. Wird mit dem Daumen bedient.

Hey now, leave those poor German model railroad enthusiasts out of this, they're harmless poor souls that have no life and having spoken to quite a number of them, they are FAR MORE tolerant of different viewpoints than the average internet forum user is.

I suggest you talk to a friend that knows something about acoustics. "Sound the same" is such a misguided concept. Before you understand why, we can't have this discussion, honestly. Why does the same piano sound different in your living room and in Albert Music Hall? Why does the same shout sound different if I'm next to you or half a mile away? This isn't complicated, this is common sense. The same string will produce a different sound based on it being in a Steinway case or a cardbox mock-up. Acoustics is complicated and not at all as easy as you think it is.

I have looked at 10 different Youtube videos of the M61A1 firing. I've heard 10 different sounds. Heck, I've heard it sounding differently in one video, too. You're not listening to what people are saying. And that's your problem, that is why nobody can take you seriously. Nobody outright disagrees with you. Nobody in this thread said "the sound is perfect." What the people in this thread are saying is that your evidence is not good enough. Doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you're not right based on your evidence. Your argument fails on merits. What would a good piece of evidence be? Not whatever SMEs are saying. No offense to Victory and the others, but all of them haven't fired the M61A1 in a Tomcat in at least 15 years, their memory is most likely not going to be the most accurate. It's just human nature, memory degrades after a while. While I am sure they could immediately say "Yep, that's an M61A1!" It's probably harder for them to say why and/or if something's *not* an M61A1. Having said that. Here's the evidence that you need to provide to actually have a serious discussion: A sound sample showcasing the M61A1 as heard inside a Tomcat, a pilot's helmet, with earprotection/radio plugs inserted at various speeds and altitudes. That's the only way you can have an argument. Because that is what DCS is simulating. Unless you come up with that. All your personal attacks, your smug attitude and frustrated venting is only going to accomplish the loss of credibility that you are experiencing right now. And yes, at this point closing the thread wouldn't hurt. And since I'm fairly certain it's impossible for you to come up with the evidence I suggested earlier, it's probably not a loss to dismiss you and your case for the time being.

And you know this from your thousands of hours flying the Tomcat? Do you see the problem here? You're making a fool of yourself flat out making these claims because... of feelings? You can't, because the same gun won't sound the same in different airframes. A lot of what you perceive as "the sound" is vibrations going through the fuselage/cockpit/helmet/ear protection. You don't actually hear "the gun" as it is on a test stand, like some optimistic guys here are pretending. Couple to this that the actual gun itself is in different positions, behind you, under you... all that has an effect on "the sound". Your solution? It's pure fantasy based on zero audio evidence.

Remember how I said CNATRA doesn't matter like two posts ago? Maybe that 30° got stuck in my head from that, thanks for pointing it out. I've not done that 30° thing in ages myself. Took me a while to figure the geometry out, but I think I got it. Yes, without watching your video, amazing I know. Either way, it doesn't change anything about what I said. You can look it up in NATOPS yourself. 1500 feet is where the recovery tanker does his circle. The entire trick or treat procedure is explained there. I'll bow out of this discussion as well. I'm not here for pissing contests. When you talk to your guys, can I request that they send me a message on Discord to set me straight, they should still have me in their history. Thanks buddy, enjoy your evening.

@Pieterras Min altitude in the stack is Angels 2, the commence is 30° offset to the outside in that circle and then you're coming around to be at the initial (3 NM) at 800 feet. Nah, the guy at 1500 feet ain't in the way. There's a reason that altitude is assigned.

Hmm, interesting. The only tanker I'm aware of that's actually in the pattern is the trick or treat Hornet at 1500 feet. I just assumed anyone that needed serious gas and was up in the stack would have gone to the tankers that are away from the carrier (if there are any circling somewhere in the CCA). But I'm fairly certain this is one of those things that are put down in Airwing SOPs and vary from ship to ship and cruise to cruise.

You have to understand that we, not being in the Navy or Naval Aviators, don't have the full picture here. We only see a very small portion of the publicized documentation that a Hornet pilot would have to adhere to. NATOPS is pretty sparse in its procedures, that is right, but most of that is fleshed out in Airwing/Squadron SOPs. And we typically never see those, either because they're classified or because nobody thinks them to be interesting enough for anyone outside the actual ship's crew to publish it anywhere but on that ship. It's probably even a combination of both, if you ask me. As for your argument, you seem to be mixing up training vs. operations. Do you need to learn to fly in a T-6 Texan to be able to fly an F-35C at some point? Probably. Does anything from that T-6 document have any relevance to an actual F-35C pilot? Sure, aerodynamic forces etc. are applicable to any aircraft. Is he ever going to look up anything in the T-6 Operator's Manual ever again for his F-35C career? Absolutely not. So, I think you understand very well what's what now and at this point you're getting hung up on semantics. This is typically where I bow out of the discussion, it's tedious and I gain nothing from this. Have a good day, buddy.

He's right though. There may be informational overlap, but that doesn't mean CNATRA is a valid reference by itself. It's not. NATOPS is. CNATRA is not applicable for normal carrier ops that don't include students. Except where NATOPS itself specifically refers to CNATRA. See, the problem you're faced here is that these documents exist to standardize procedures. And lending two documents validity and authority is the exact opposite of their purpose, it would add ambiguity and confusion about which document counts.

Of course there are many MK-82s lying around. They're the base for the GBU-12/GBU-38. Same with the other weight classes...

CNATRA is an document serving the information, standardisation and guidance for instructors and student aviators within Naval Air Training Command. It is tailored to supplement the T-45C Advanced Strike Training Curriculum. If you are in the squadron and all, your document is NATOPS. And at that point, CNATRA means nothing to you. Your Airwing/Squadron SOPs and NATOPS is where you get your information from. Is there some overlap? Yeah, sure, because CNATRA is meant to prepare you for naval aviation, guiding you to being able to fly according to NATOPS standards. Would an actual hornet pilot look up stuff in CNATRA? Most likely not. Especially not for CV OPS, since NATOPS has its own document regarding that topic. And that supercedes anything in CNATRA. I'm always happy for the naval aviators in our community to correct me on anything I just said, but that's my general understanding. As for the first sentence... it makes no sense at all. CASE I, II and III are put down in NATOPS, the descend/climb restrictions are also part of NATOPS. Not sure why you feel the need to hyperbole. Calm down and let other people be right, it's not a crime.

What is this "everything"? Personal bias or do you have sources for that statement? Not trying to be difficult here, but what you're doing is manipulating your own expectations and unless you have an actual reason to believe any of that, this is pure speculation and you possibly setting yourself up for disappointment. Just a friendly reminder, manage your expectations. It will be 100% realistic enough for you to not be able to tell if it's realistic or not.

Discussion should have ended with the lack of an in-cockpit video with studio level recording equipment... I've thought about sound issues with the Tomcat a lot, and I always come back to... "But all I know are bad quality 80/90s camcorder videos with shitty microphones that you wouldn't even put in a cheap smartphone these days... I don't actually know!" And on top of that, people forget that pilots (ie. WE) wore all kinds of ear protection; headphones and helmets and stuff, even if you have a pristine studio level recording of the inside of a cockpit, it's not what the pilots would have heard!

War ACLS nicht bis jetzt nur in der Tomcat verfügbar? Glaub in der Hornet geht es nicht. Aber ich kann mich hier auch irren... (Deswegen geben wir bei Fragen am besten gleich den Flugzeugtyp mit an!)