Flamin_Squirrel

There's a DCS Discord channel up now; that might be a good place to look for people to fly with.

Total guess, but was keeping track of weight a RIO task? Is this something Jester will do?

I just found this viewpoint when searching on this topic: Made me laugh :) I'm not saying it's not a valid technique, just that how successful it is is going to vary with the aircraft, going from great for SEP and Naval aircraft, to hopeless for a 747 :D

I wasn't, and I'm glad because I think it's an oversimplification; it's also not a technique that works well with all aircraft from what I can tell. Invaluable in the Hornet of course though :thumbup: The FCS page shows control surface position, so it will change when you move the stick/pedals. I wouldn't use it to judge trim in flight.

You can't see it in the controls indicator. Looks like RPM is the best indicator, having referred to NATOPS, however there is overlap:

You behaviour in this thread indicates otherwise. You've refused to listen to anything anyone else has said from the get-go. And I've seen 747 captains misunderstand some basic principles, so in that regard Nikola is correct.

Bizarrely for a relatively modern jet, there is!

IIRC... HSI -> DATA -> A/C This will display mag variation amongst the info.

Absolutely, but flying supersonic requires a lot of power. Far more efficient to cruise at subsonic speeds. The FPAS page gives you optimum altitude and mach numbers to fly at.

That's a factor too, but not what I had in mind. I was referring to the TACAN being offset. If you keep getting this I'd be interested to see a screenshot (it's not something I've seen).

You need to understand that many charts, including that one, incorporate the performance of both aircraft and pilot. Example: referencing V1 to reject a takeoff. The calculated V1 for rejecting a takeoff is actually slightly less than it otherwise could be, because it allows for 2 seconds for the pilot to make the decision to stop. Stopping distance charts are no different. The reason the distances for no anti-skid are so much longer are because you can't safely access the aircraft's performance (you can't brake hard because you can't tell if you've locked up or not), so enormous safety margins are added in. It is NOT because you have less grip.

I get this too, always around 20k ft, and suspect this is a bug. At least, if it isn't, I can't see anything that indicates a good reason why it would occur at this specific altitude, and clear when you climb.

Laughable, coming from someone who thinks skidmarks = lockup.

Exactly, a human can't get close to the maximum grip available while preventing lockup, hence you have to be cautious and apply less braking than the available grip will allow. Anti-skid doesn't actually change the physics involved.

Probably need a screenshot at least to help you. Remember that the TACAN isn't at the end of the runway, so don't expect your course, heading and deviation line to all line up as you cross the threshold.

No, inop anti-skid does not increase landing distance, it increases the landing distance you have to allow for. It doesn't mysteriously alter grip levels. If you're a real pilot you should understand the difference.

Rubbish. Lock up means 0 wheel rotation. Optimum braking is often achieved with a certain amount of wheel slip, around the 10% mark (i.e. wheels rotating 10% less than ground speed). So no, leaving rubber behind does NOT mean a lockup occured.

That's all understood. Is the AWG9 capable of detecting a target with zero doppler shift under any circumference? In STT in particular, why would the AWG9 need to apply any more filtering to a co-altitude target than one above? I don't know. I see what you're getting at. You may be right, I guess it just depends on how much impact these factors have. It might be difficult to get a definitive answer without knowing more about the AWG9's limitations. Edit:: post in response to OnlyforDCS

If you're not going to listen I'm not going to bother explaining. Maybe someone else will.

You already know the answer :D

Sorry that's just plain wrong.

While I can't answer your question, I think you may have a bit of a misunderstanding of the shortcoming of the different primary radar modes: Pulse & Pulse Doppler. The following refers to target tracking alone; I'm not sure how mode switching works once a missile is off the rail. Pulse Doppler uses doppler filtering to reduce the effect of ground clutter, but leaves it vulnerable to notching. Pulse mode does not, which means it is less vulnerable to notching, but may lose targets in ground clutter. So in your scenario, getting under the target won't do anything to prevent being notched in and of itself. If the target notched you, you could go into Pulse mode to prevent the notch succeeding. If the target then dived as well, you could lose the target in ground clutter - this is the point at which you would dive to prevent that from happening. I hope I've understood your scenario (and the manual describing these modes for that matter!) and if not, hopefully some food for thought at least. It's a little tricky to understand the practicalities of some of this stuff without being able to try it out.

You expect people to hand over money without one? :huh:

Not correct. The ejection select lever is in RIO cockpit.

I think you've missed Jarhead's point. Whiners whine, but they're generally easily spotted and ignored. Fanboys are much worse: they seek to accuse anyone with even legitimate criticism of being whiny and aggressive when they're the worst offenders. I believe this hypocrisy is what Jarhead is pointing out.