antagonist
-
Posts
269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by antagonist
-
-
IRST is not the same thing as IRIS-T missile (which is the off-boresight missile most Typhoon operators use). German Typhoons lack the former, but do carry the latter. I'm not sure whether the IRIS-T was introduced after Tranche 1 though.
I have no idea why this assumption is so pervasive. Here, a German Typhoon with PIRATE:
-
Do you already know what the extent of the available capabilities is going to be?
Specifically, can you out of hand confirm or deny PIRATE and Meteor?
-
A-23 is totally a dark horse, though both A-13 and A-17 have necessary amount of information suitable at least to model their governing law and to set backpressure limits they can provide. A-17, as stated in the document from 10 Jan 1944 was used for P-47C thru P-47D-15.
As A-23 can be replaced with A-13, it's plausible that a real plane could have A-13 turbo regulator instead of failed A-23. I think, it's better to have modeled something that resembles original item than to have something fantastic.
Of course, if something useful for A-23 is available, we can replace it back.
By the way, what document stated that A-23 was compulsory for -22+?
Sure!
Page 234, item #28.
E: Added the revision history to show page 234 had remained unchanged since May '45.
-
So wait, didn't the P-47D-30 come with an A-23 turbo regulator from the factory?
This document dated Feb 3, 1944 says the A-23 regulator was already being used operationally and was to be preferred over the A-13.
From what I've been able to find in a quick search, the first P-47 block that came with the A-23 regulator from the factory was the D-22.
-
IIRC he commented for the earlier version of the Hornet not the newest one.
But what makes you think the later Hornet's engines would suddenly spool up slower?
-
why ppl thinks that heavier object will fall faster i dont know
earth gravity attract objects to it's centre. the force depends on mass of the object so if we have heavier plane earth will affect it with greater force but acceleration will remain the same becouse havier object neeed greater force to reach same acceleration.
in initial stage of the dive while plane has low velocity engine power place greater impact on acceleration so more power better less mass better at great speeds engine power effect passing away leaving only gravity in dominant force, at high velocity neither mass of the plane or engine power plays the role only drag of the airframe.
in climb after dive extra mass wont change anything earth will put same ammount decceleration on heavy and light plane so in this case engine powert to weight ration will play main role and airframe with less high speed drag will win here too
if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but planes mass were preaty much the same comparing to their drag
as most of ww2 planes can go in dive much faster then structural strenth of the airframe at low alt so only difrences between those planes is controlbility at high mach numbers at high at alt
if we compare planes with similar drag and couple times difrence in mass that would change the subject but
so D-9 is much better in diving for sure
and difrence in mass d-9 and a-8 is marginal i would say and a-8 has more draggy airframe
In the absence of drag, yes. Once you get close to a plane's level top speed, the heavier it is, the faster it'll keep accelerating past it.
Is it going to decide the fight? Probably, hell, almost certainly not outside of very specific circumstances.
Is it measurable? Absolutely.
E: Also, following your logic, parachuting is impossible.
--------
Also, saying this isn't true because the 109K outperforms its opponents is a logical fallacy. The plane has in the vicinity of 400 more hp than the Spitfire and Mustang, yet is around 800 kg lighter at TOW than the P-51 and around the same weight as the Spit.
-
I really wish ED would take the F-16's release to finally do something about this. Heatblur electing to use their own values for the F-14's M61 was the right choice considering the sorry state the vanilla game's is in right now.
-
-
That doesn't seem right. You can't change that distance.
It's not about physical distance between them, it's about the hydrostatic head the heart has to pump blood up against.
-
Pylons 7/7a and 3/3a, what does that mean?
-
The key here is to simple deny any interaction to players who don't own the module; not the ham fisted way of denying people access to servers.
Remember the golden rule: Do not split the community!
The moment where ownership of a certain module is required to be able to access online play is the moment where it's probably only going to get bought by the ones who don't care for online play.
Don't let this be to current day combat aviation what the WW2 asset pack was to DCS: WW2.
-
I can attest the Saitek X55 is prone to creating ghost signals in the switch wiring if you move the throttle. Maybe the X56 is affected in a similar way?
-
I can confirm vertical scan modes are working with the gun selected.
-
Yes, confirming. Also would like to add it should be smaller if you're in VR.
-
That's not a valid loadout, if you are carrying any Phoenix's in the tunnel you need to populate the forward 2 first. This had something to do with the cooling system and how the plumbing worked. If you want to carry 2 x AIM-54 and 4 x AIM-7 you'll have to carry the Phoenix on stations 1B and 8B (Below the sidewinders).
Then consider this to be two bug reports in one, because I'd bet any loadout requiring pallets on the rear hardpoints while mounting AIM-7s on the forward ones won't render them.
-
If you select the rear two fuselage hardpoints to mount AIM-54s and the ones ahead of them to mount AIM-7s, the AIM-54s will just float in the air as no pallet will be installed.
I am also unsure whether that kind of loadout configuration was valid for the plane.
-
Ah, so they *are* missing and I wasn't imagining things. That's good to know.
-
Let me say beforehand that I may be completely wrong about the following:
From my understanding, one of the differences between the A and B version was the addition of RWR antennas underneath the wing gloves, which required two fairings per side to be added to the fuselage.
With the D, these RWR antennas were relocated to inside of the compartment where the glove vanes used to be installed, cleaning up the airframe's lines again.
So I was expecting our F-14 to have those fairings, but it doesn't. Is it an oversight or is my information inaccurate/incomplete? :huh:
-
Master test switch is synonymous with eyestrain and borderline neck injury.
Also, without some inventive neck strain, the hydraulic transfer pump switch cannot easily be operated because it's obscured by its cover - an issue exacerbated by the fact I couldn't find it in the mappable controls list.
-
VKB dev cycles being what they are, I don't see this becoming available before 2025 or so.
-
I guess it'll be #twomoreweeks...
-
But shouldn't chaff discrimination be reliant on actual speed, not relative?
Assuming an F-14 is chasing a contact from slightly below and a delta-v of 0, any chaff dropped to spoof the radar would almost immediately slow down to ambient wind speeds.
I don't see how disabling the MLC filter against a target above the horizon can even affect chaff discrimination as chaff would have a delta-v much slower than 133 kts over the vast majority of its lifetime.
-
NGL I'd love to have that HUD.
-
RIP
Also, **** cancer.
Open Letter to ED
in Chit-Chat
Posted
Not just no, but <profanity> the hell no to a subscription model.