ESzczesniak

Actually, there are times you will want to apply roll input (I guess not trim) during your takeoff roll prior to actual takeoff. A heavy cross wind will have the tendancy to life the upwind wing. As the aircraft get's lighter on it's wheels with increasing speed this can actually roll the aircraft. Then, immediately after life off you can have a snap roll from the wind lifting this wing. This is actually particularly important in light GA aircraft. In strong crosswinds in such an aircraft, you'll actually start your takeoff roll with significant aileron input to put the upwind wind down (sometimes in line with what would be needed to make a 30-40 degree bank). As you pick up speed and the control surfaces become more active you ease out this aileron input to just a small bit of upwind wing down so that you takeoff in a wings level attitude.

On a related question, when I've done this I've found mission timings can get messed up. The time it takes me to do the startup procedures allows other units to head in to the kill box and start destroying things (the things I'm supposed to get the joy of destroying). This particularly happens on the Shooting Gallery mission where I'd like to be able to practice all aspects of the flight/mission including startup. Unfortunately the A-10 support flight you are supposed to be able to task just goes ahead and does it all before I can get there. I've tried setting the start time for the player A-10 flight 15 minutes earlier to allow for the ramp start up time, but this doesn't seem to do the trick. Any other thoughts?

What are they going to lock on to without a kerosine torch on the back end? In all seriousness I do look forward to the aircraft, but hope that it's the first in a serious of aircraft for a similar time frame so that we can setup reasonable scenarios.

Well, this rarely is so much the case on land bases, but blue water ops on aircraft carriers the stricken/damaged aircraft actually does orbit while the remaining aircraft recover. When you have only one 400' "runway", you can't afford a burning hulk when you still have other aircraft airborne.

Ummm...it's called A-10C for a reason. What other planes where you expecting? You can get Flaming Cliffs 2 if you want more options for flyable aircraft, but less detailed modeling of these aircraft.

Remember in formation landings that it is good practice for trailing aircraft to touchdown first. This prevents the lead aircraft from decelerating from the ground friction while the trail remains airborne at steady speed possibly leading to a collision. In fact, in civilian realms (not sure about military) practice is for the trail aircraft to immediately go- around if the lead does touchdown first in order to deconflict.

I understand and that's why I tried to make this clear. I was trying to clarify principle's with APU management. I do not fly A-10C's and combat aircraft are markedly different than civillian. However, I've seen so many misconceptions with APU principles that I wanted to note some of these points.

If I may comment on APU's. I do not know what the dash-1 says about the A-10C specifically. However, I am more familiar with civil airline operations. There seems to be a common misconception that APU's run only during emergencies while airborne. What is true is that APU's are used only during emergencies, but they often run at other times. There are two considerations that need to be realized (and are often not realized) regarding APU's. First, the APU has a poorer track record for service reliability than the turbojets powering the aircraft. This means that the APU is far more likely to turn on when you need. Secondly, APU's like your turbojets, do not start reliably at high altitudes. So for civilian aviation, there are circumstances where your APU must run during flight even if you do not plan to use the APU. The best example I can think of is ETOPs operations that require the APU to be on upon entry in to a track. This essentially is to ensure that the APU is able to be started and is running properly so that it may be used if your in the middle of the Atlantic. Please understand, I do not mean to imply that the A-10 needs the APU on when over water. I do not know what the dash-1 says and what the limitations are on the APU. However, these aspects of APU use seem to often be forgotten.

Wait, there's life above 500' off the deck? What's the fun in that? In fairness, I actually do standoff with weapons and employ form 16-18,000' MSL when dictated by threat profiles. It's just so much more fun on the deck.

Perhaps the mission "Shooting Gallery" is what you're looking for. It's listed under the missions tab, the same place you'd find full combat missions. But here, it's basically a target range with JTAC and tanker support. You're free to play and shoot however you want. I think by default you start engines running on the runway, but a quick edit in the mission editor can change that to a ramp start.

Your point is well taken. However, I wonder how well CCRP mode might work with this. Depending on how the computers handle it, this could be like an extreme toss bombing.

...and unlike Davis Monthan, Nellis is much more generalizeable to future modules. Even F/A-18's could call this home for red flag excercises.

I adjust the boresight position straight down on the HUD. If you're using boresight, you're probably looking out the window trying to acquire targets. If this is the case, I find the default boresight position to be beyond my visual ID range, meaning the boresight has "overflown" the target by the time I acquire it. This is unless I'm in a 10-20 degree dive which can only be sustained so long before finding terra firma. Dropping the boresight further down the HUD away from my FPM allows the boresight to be more near a target at the time I visually ID it.

I don't know, I'll tell you when I get there...and I've been in since beta 1.

Within the limits of FSX (which are many), my understanding is that the VRS radar is a reasonable simulation of the AN/APG-73. This is meant to be in terms of the right sub-pages, symbology, etc. The physics of the radar is completely out of wack while working in the FSX world (in that regard, it's essentially a glorified TCAS gauge). Now the AESA radar put on all but the early F/A-18E/F's are a whole other story.

If you're using LGB's, you also need to have a TGP loaded to lase the target. Try using this to designate your target and set it as SPI. Then drop the LGB using the CCRP mode (can be set in the DSMS profiles page). If you do this, you can drop from level flight (actually, you can even toss while in a climb, although the A-10 lacks the speed for this to be terribly effective) instead of needing to be in a dive like you mention. CCIP is much more relevant to dumb bombs with no targeting pod available. You then need to acquire the target withthe Mk.I eyeballs and take it from there. The 3/9 mode you're talking about (where you get the TDL and a countdown to release) is like a cross between CCIP and CCRP (although this hybrid mode is called something else, I'm forgetting what right now). The concept of this hybrid mode is that you can "acquire" your target by putting the pipper on it in the HUD like in CCIP. However, this mode keeps your pipper glued to the bottom of the HUD so you can always see it (as long as you're in a >3 degree dive if I remember right) while in CCIP you may need to be in a steep dive to see you're pipper. 3/9 vs 5 mil actually refers to the accuracy you need to place the CCRP marker through for the system to actually release the weapon (remember, you're only a voting member in the aircraft systems with modern aircraft). In 3/9, it will simply release when it is at the 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock position of the release point on the TDL. In 5 mil, the release countdown circle has a 5 mil ring on it and the TDL needs to be inside that ring when it reaches the release marker. 5 mil is more accurate, but slightly more challenging as well.

The F/A-18A/C is a very popular USN fixed wing aircraft. Every well known modern US aircraft (F-15, F-16, F/A-18...I think that covers them all except the A-10 we already have) has lovers and haters. People will say the F-15 is just for burning holes in the sky on BARCAP missions, that the F-16 has been over done and that the F/A-18 isn't as capable in either arena as the F-15 and F-16. Personally, I think any of these 3 aircraft fit the bill of a "popular US fixed wing aircraft". Sure, the F/A-18E/F would be more popular, but I do not personally believe that there is enough data on this aircraft that is unclassified for DCS to be able to model it to their preference. Same thing for the F-22A. E-2C, F-117, E-3, KC-135, EA-6B...well I'd be happy if any of them are done to a DCS level, but I think these are the type of aircraft that fall out of the realm of "very popular".

Sorry, what I should have said to be more clear is that carrier airwings are not composed entirely of Super Bugs. I understand that the the Super Bug is fully operational and has been so for several years.

It remains a frontline airframe. The Super Hornet is a more capable aircraft, but they are not fully deployed fleet wide at the moment. My understanding is that they are used more for alert CAS missions with their limited loiter time. The Super Bugs have a longer loiter time and I believe are doing more of the on-call/on-station CAS.

I just came across this thread, which surprises me a bit since it's right in line with my interestes. I've been building scale models for quite some time. Currently, there's a Barksdale 1/48 A-10A, a 1/48 F-16I Sufa, 1/144 737-800 ("Flying 101") and a 1/72 B-17G on my workbench. The pictures are not the best quality, but here's a few of the past builds: 1/48 F/A-18F VFA-103 1/24 Enzo Ferrari 1/32 Spitfire Mk.IXc 1/32 F-16CJ Blk. 50 1/48 F-16C Blk. 32 1/72 E-2C Hawkeye 2000 And a couple in progress of a 1/32 Su-27 cockpit

Actually, I think that's part of the enthusiasm. Going back for more bombs means a carrier trap and done to the standards of DCS, that'll be some experience.

I believe 210 kts has actually been thrown around as a minimum attack speed actually, not ideal speed. Below this the A-10's cornering performance drops off dramatically, you have a low energy reserve for evasive maneuvering and you are a particularly slow target.

Am I missing some pictures? I see a bang seat, two F-16 (block 40?) pit pictures and to Mi-24 pictures.

Well, I think quite the opposite actually. I'm fairly good with tools and the actual construction I'm not so worried about. My plan is to make steam gauges out of, well...steam gauges. I'm aware of using servos to power these, but I'm not so good with electronics. What I clearly need is some idea how the interface for servos will work. In other words, how do I make the magic happen from the export file, through a USB cable in to the servo motor? The rest will require some work, but are basic metal and wood working skills I can live with.

I'm going to sit down soon and start building an A-10C cockpit. My plan is to start with the full front instrument panel since that is by far the most useful once you're up and running. Of course, this also has the most challenging gauges to make/extract. Anyone have any thoughts on how to make some of these work? 1. RWR: Short of finding a 3x3 LCD monitor, I have no idea how to put extracted RWR data on to a gauge. Anyone know of some pre-built gauges or work arounds? 2. Countermeasures UFC panel: So, in principle, this is a simple LED display. However, any thoughts on how I'm going to extract this from DCS A-10C to display the correct numbers and letters? 3. Engine gauges: most of the basic six instruments can be tweaked and modified from existing home cockpit gauges (altimeter, etc). Any ideas on a simple way to make all of these engine dials though? I'm aware of the Helios concept of display these on an LCD monitor. However, I want something that really looks and feels much more like a military cockpit. I don't need millimeter accuracy, but I want it to look darn near the real thing.