Flamin_Squirrel

A missile will (generally) not point directly at where the target is now, it will aim for where the target will be. The former (which I think you were trying to draw) is an inefficient way to intercept, because if the target has any kind of crossing speed, the missile will constantly have to change course which uses up energy and results in a longer flight path. Instead, a missile will try to aim for where the target will be by maintaining a constant angle to the target. Having a crossing speed is, on its own, is therefore not enough to avoid a missile. You have to change the direction, vector if you will, of your crossing, to get the missile to turn. One of the most simple ways of doing this is flying perpendicular to the path of the missile at corner speed, then rolling inverted and pull back hard at the right time.

Two factors are influence lead (against a non-maneuvering target): crossing speed of the target, and the speed of the missile. The slower the crossing angle of the target or the faster the missile, the less the lead required. If the target changes direction, a faster missile will have a greater turning radious, but because it will be pulling less lead than a slower missile, it has a smaller heading change to make.

No need to get defensive. It was just a thought that popped into my head. I may well be missing something else that's more significant.

The faster the missile the less lead it requires, and few degrees of heading change you can achieve in a given time before it reaches you though.

Wings are designed to flex though.

What would you expect to happen? It seems to me (and I admit I could be wrong) that the limit is primarily there to extend the life of the airframe over a period of decades rather than preventing you snapping wings off.

Any wind acts on both you and the tanker, so has no effect*. *with the exception of gusts/turbulence.

Perfect, thank you!

56,000lbs IIRC. edit:// Checked NATOPS: 54,000lbs with AYC-679 or AYC-805, or 51,800 without. If anyone has a clue what AYC-679 or AYC-805 are, I'd like to know!

My thoughts exactly.

I don't doubt that it's the developer's choice and, I never questioned that; I was specifically addressing your point regarding realism and why it wasn't valid. Stop accusing people of being critical or demanding when no-one is being anything of the sort. You're preventing constructive conversation.

No. Your logic is faulty. Depending on someone's setup, they may not be able to look to either side of the stick which is itself unrealistic, and this is a potential solution. It's an 'unrealistic' solution to solve an existing issue of unrealism. I'm not sure why you think removing the entire cockpit is equivalent.

We're not sitting in the real plane so 'realism' is not a valid reason.

Understood, but we're not in the real thing and can't necessarily do that. If it's not a development priority that's understandable, and if you don't like it that's understandable too. However that doesn't mean there aren't people who would appreciate it and/or for people who your proposed solutions aren't practical. In short, please don't dismiss the idea out of hand because of your own personal view.

Agreed, hiding the stick should be an option.

What are you on about? The OP was perfectly civil, raised a valid question, and most importantly, made no demands on the time frame in which any issues should be addressed. Nor has anyone else from what I can see. Feedback is good. Don't put people off from providing it just because you don't see a problem.

Denied, based on council's conflict of interest. New motion proposed: whatever your view, don't be an arse :D

I'd like to submit this as evidence that whiners are by no means the only ones responsible for forum toxicity.

Agreed. There's plenty to learn enjoy without it being feature complete. But that's not HB's way. Plus, we don't know what bugs are still around that while not showing up in the videos we've seen, could prove very annoying and good reason not to release yet. Oh well, a maximum of 94 days to go!

Very interesting, thanks!

You're assuming the same person who'd create any videos is the same person on the critical development path.

They don't even start to move until 0.5mach. You have to be going much faster than that for them to fully deploy.

I think this thread is probably more constructive than most would give it credit for. I'm impressed actually, as it's gotten a bit heated but generally people have put across their views, even strong ones, without it getting too personal. For 8 pages on such a contentious issue, that's not bad. Plus Cobra has contributed. Hopefully he won't take anything said here personally, and will be a bit more open in future.

That's last ditch option. It's better for all involved if feedback is given/received, even if you don't agree with it.

The Hornet emergency landing gear system uses the APU and emergency brake (hydraulic) accumilators to facilitate gear extension. Hope that helps.