Spurts

For clarity, @Naquaii, you are saying that looking at the ground/sea in PD and trying to track a slow/static target is problematic because all the returns have the same Velocity Gate so all that is left is looking for which Range Gate has the strongest return, which is in effect what Pulse does?

could very well be that the small gap between closely dropped Mk84s is creating a venturi that draws them closer together until they hit. Could be something else.

Apologies, you are correct in that I misunderstood. I blew myself up a lot initially by not having enough G on the jet. Looking at your pictures it doesn't look like 10m between releases, looks more like pairs. 10m would still be really close for Mk84s. The bomb itself is over 3m long. Even still, that is clearly not the distance between releases.

Make sure you have positive G on the jet.

So you need to use P-STT in look-up and "The Great White Hope" to be un-notchable?

Just to add, I tend to see the sweeping indicator with Sidewinders Selected. I have, in the past, had intermittent VSL not working for a few minutes then all of a sudden it does. I have also, as a RIO, practiced getting a PSTT lock in a dogfight when VSL isn't working.

I did nothing but 1v1 dogfights and carrier landings until I got the hang of the birds handling characteristics. Now there is nothing I enjoy flying more.

Most airshow routines also don't go above 7G, even if the announcer says otherwise. a 250kg class LGB isn't THAT much heavier than a Meteor. Those are also going to be inert rounds, so there is no consideration about "how many Gs can the bomb components take and still function".

back to the topic. If we get the option to remove the CFTs then we have a slightly heavier F-15D, and if we get the -229 powered Mudhen instead of the -220 powered model then it is an overpowered, slightly heavier, F-15D.

I like it. Simple, in theory, and would add a TON of playability to those of use who enjoy the back seat and don't have reliable humans to mount the front.

I wonder what settings I have differently. I'll have another look to try and give a relative arm length distance measurement (elbow, forearm, etc)

Nah, even when I land on runways I am doing a jet-borne approach. I never touch down at more than 50kt.

I never use the brakes during aerobraking so I can't say what the sim is doing, but I can go over the physics of what SHOULD happen. You are spot on that the braking drag below the CG will pull the nose down. The further forward the CG is in a nose up attitude the longer the moment arm for the braking force to act on, so it would increase the nose down moment (weather this is enough to be noticeable I cannot say right now). An increase in stab deflection would counter the nose down, assuming you still have stick travel available. One thing to keep in mind is that early in the aerobrake, when speed is still high, is that the wheels have very little weight on them and thus they can only provide a small amount of brake force drag. The wings are still holding up the plane. Landing a taildragger like the P-51, you hold max aft stick and then as much brake as you can without flipping over the gear and smashing the prop. The same balance of brake moment and tail moment, but when you do that you are unloading the wing and putting weight on the wheels. Landing the F-15 is much the same as the F-16. Landing the F/A-18 you can't get the nose up when at landing speeds due to the gear design so to minimize landing roll you need to actually pull the flaps up to get all the weight on the wheels for braking. The F-14 has the shortest stopping distance of any 4th gen US fast jet. This is due to lower approach speed, fantastic brakes, and that the moment weight-on-wheels is detected the spoilers deploy and dump all the lift off the wings. Max weight on wheels for max braking drag in addition to aerodrag from deployed spoilers, flaps, airbrake, and in my case fully deflected stabilator. In the Harrier you just cut power and laugh.

By default the Center of Gravity CG is in front of the MLG by enough that you can be so nose high on the ground that your tail scrapes and the nose will still come down. If the CG was further aft than this once you aerobrake to a certain point the jet would rest like this until the back is jacked up. The horizontal tail at full deflection will make a "fixed" about of downforce on the tail at any given speed. So at any speed there is only so much "force" holding the nose up, and this force increases as a square of the speed. *Edit* or I should say decreases as the square of the speed since we are slowing down. The heavier the plane, the more force is pulling the nose down. This force does not change with speed. Once the nose down force exceeds the nose up force the nose will begin to drop. So a heavier plane will pull the nose down at a higher speed than a lighter plane. If you have stores that move the CG forward (most do) then even at the same notional weight the nose will pull down harder and the nose will come down at a higher speed. At 32,000lb you are both heavy and have nose heavy stores on board. Both things will pull the nose down. *Edit2* This is literally the same physics that doesn't let you rotate on takeoff at the same speed for all configurations and weights.

~20k-30k IIRC Those look like instantaneous rates, not sustained rates. They are also not even complete for a given altitude and only look at a very small portion of a flight envelope and have no G limit applied to them.

That is not the impression I have in VR. I feel like the ICP is in my face.

That is such an omnipresent 'gotcha' that it doesn't even surprise me when it happens anymore. Right there with axis mapping getting borked after an update.

I misunderstood you then. My apologies.

you need to quantify that. ~1.05 in Mil is possible with a clean F-16 blk 50

The AWG10 was the WCS for the F-4 Phantom

burn off all fuel, drop all munitions, line up with carrier centerline, come in on speed but steep and way above glideslope, (1500+fpm descent) and hope the pancake of a landing only breaks the gear and doesn't explode the jet. Alternatively, overfly the deck and low alt and punch out and see if the deck physics is working to catch you.

in what graph? In general, for a given radius (determined largely by stall speed in a configuration) as speed increases then G increases until you reach a G limit, then it decreases. The Hornet has a lower stall speed and thus a tighter radius, so until such a speed as the Viper reaches 7.5G the Hornet will turn faster. as to the second part, I am not seeing the graph so I can't tell you.

the Viper best sustained turn rate does not occur at 9G. And as far as turn rates go 7.5G at lower speed can easily equal or exceed 9G at higher speed and have a smaller radius to boot. That is simply the geometry of a turn. As for proof, the proof is in a document that compares a Super Hornet to a -402 Hornet that gives a peak sustained turn rate for a listed altitude, load, and fuel state. I then take that over to the Viper flight manual and look up the corresponding altitude, load, and fuel state. And using the paddle will not increase sustained turn rate, ever.

the fuel efficiency

thanks for the education fellas.