heloguy

Sounds like the APU isn't coming on at all. Although the real one will probably light off, the SIM may not be letting it come on if you didn't take the FUEL PUMP switch to APU BOOST prior to turning the APU CONTROL SWITCH to ON.

See the link below for a rendering of each warhead. You can see that the M151 and M282 are very similar in length. The M282 actually looks a bit shorter. The rockets are loaded and seated all the way to the rear of the pod no matter which type is loaded, so it stands to reason that the M282 would be recessed the same as the M151. Hydra 70 Rocket with Warheads - 3D Model by Akela Freedom (renderhub.com) Here's another comparison: The right most is an M282 (without umbilical, so not an A1 variant), the 5th from the right is an M151, and just for comparison, the 3rd from the left is an M229.

This. Fuel flow will be based on how much torque you're pulling to maintain your airspeed/altitude.

That’s what I thought, which if that’s the case, the more common version without selectable fuzing should probably be what’s simulated (as you said, no umbilical). Either way, whichever version ED decides to keep with the module, the MPPs shouldn’t stick out of the front of the pod.

Sounds good, thanks.

Thanks! Is the lack of a ‘fixed option’ aside from GND STOW correct compared to the actual aircraft, or a feature yet to be added?

If it’s the A1 version, it would. Not sure if that’s correct for the year/version being modeled. The vanilla M282 has no umbilical, and a nominal 6 + or - 4 ms delay. I noticed the rocket mfd page has fuze setting options, which caters to the umbilical, but I’m not sure how proliferated these are in the Army compared to the vanilla MPP.

The M282A1 warhead sticks out of the front of the M261 rocket pod as modeled in the sim. The warhead is roughly the same length as an M151, so it should be recessed in the pod with the umbilical being visible out the front when properly loaded.

I haven’t been able to get the rocket pylons to fix forward, and not actuate. I’ve tried selecting fixed through the weapons page on the mfd on the rat page, but they still move up an down with my head movement. Am I missing something, or is his a bug?

Can all ammunition get a no tracer option? Or at least DODICs (US only term) that come with that option? Day tracers with NVGs are killer, and unrealistic by current standards.

Still hoping for the ability to add a grease mark to the window, in both seats. Also, would love to be able to change ammunition types for the M134. Would love a dim tracer only visible with NVGs, but would take a no tracer option as well.

Which files did you end up moving? I'm having the same issue.

One thing I just noticed, and forgive me if it's been brought up, but I definitely don't remember ever seeing that type of stabilator with hand holds. The hand holds only showed up on the foldable version that is more rectangular in shape. The version in the mod seems to be a melding of the two. A real small thing, though, thanks for the great mod! Edit: Nevermind, just saw in Discord that it's known, and not a priority, which is understandable. UH-60L: UH-60M:

@BIGNEWY, sorry it took this long to take a look back at this. In the middle of a move, but just gave it a shot. I've since moved on to using Chuls's BrunnerDX w/Arduino adapter so my Brunner has actual FFB effects, but when I reset back to using hardware trim with the Joystick without Springs or FFB option, low and behold, the pitch oscillations are gone. Looks like you guys have it solved! Thanks!

I'm not an F-15C RWR expert, but proximity to center of the RWR display has nothing to do with physical location of the threat on most aircraft. Instead, proximity to center usually is based on the pre-determined (ie, programmed) level of threat. For example, if a surface to air threat radar is in search mode, it will be toward the outside of the display. If that surface to air threat switches to acquisition, or track, it will move toward the center of the display. The only indication of physical location is the direction. The system can't determine the distance to the threat. In this case, the F-15C's RWR is programmed to show that the JF-17's air to air radar is a threat of the highest priority, therefore it will always populate toward the center of the display. I may be oversimplifying this, so someone who knows better, please chime in.

Well done, and thanks!

At least they ended with an exciting refuel.

I hear you. I wonder if it has something to do with the Army, or when they were developed, as H-53 engines are GE T-64s, and have no TGT limiting. They also don't have any electronic governing, so again, maybe it was something implemented later. Automatic bypass of limitation based on rotor droop may be something that needs a FADEC to implement. Maybe the simpler electronics of ECU/DECU aren't able to handle those kinds of operations.

Or, what? You don't shoot guys that appear to have manpads with a missile because it's 'too expensive?' This is ridiculous... You shoot the weapon that provides effects that meet the commander's intent. Usually, part of that intent, is that crews and equipment make it back to do more missions. The cost of munitions is pretty much never a factor in combat. At any rate, if an attacking force is going against a sea of manpads, they'll use a different way to attack the enemy until that threat is neutralized.

Actually, yeah, it does. Unless something has changed with 701s. Lockout is a mechanical bypass as Raptor explained.

Mechanically bypass the torque motor inputs and control the engine manually?

Well, despite theories of why you would go to lockout, lightspeed included, I'm only curious if it will be modeled. By no means was I talking about using it on a regular basis. Only in the emergencies it's prescribed for.

No, I didn't. You did. As a helicopter pilot for 15 years, I understand what the limits in the book mean. I also understand that in an emergency, you do what you need to do to ensure crew survival. The limits in the book protect components from failure before their scheduled time before overhaul. They aren't the point of failure. There is a safety margin built in by those limits. If you exceed them during normal operations, you'll probably be fired. If you exceed them in an emergency, you will be investigated, and potentially fired. But if you saved a crew from death, or an airframe from destruction, you probably did just fine.

This is true. In normal operations. But if you have put yourself in a situation where your rotor is drooping, and collective reduction is not an option, manual operation of the power levers (lockout) may be the only option to make the situation survivable. Every engine is different. The limits exist so manufacturers can guarantee time before overhaul (TBO). Not because if you exceed them you’ll have an immediate failure. On the other hand, if you fly around with the engines in lockout, power levers maxed, rotor RPM through the roof, not only are you doing it wrong, but no one will be surprised when you do smoke an engine, or seize a transmission.

You could use the realistic way with any controller. You’d just need to press a button to let it go back past idle for shutdown.