britgliderpilot

I love the Russians! For some reason that post inspires nostalgia for the Aviation forum at the Ubi Lomac forums . . . . . how long ago does that feel? :P

Have heard the story before, but . . . Oh . . . Em . . . Eff . . . Gee . . .

Would that be that before or after the "hazing" in the showers?

If you've got a hatswitch spare somewhere, that helps - click it up, down for the trim and you can usually leave the sideways directions free for other functions or switches. Highly useful for all the Russian aircraft. With the possible exception of the Ka50 :P

. . . . . now THERE's a good question! I lay the question at the feet of the mighty Fly By Wire Computers - I'm not actually sure. Anyone suggest a reason for having the ruddervators in pitch-down position while the elevators are in pitch-up position? Carefully balancing pitch at high alpha, perhaps?

Right, flight tested. No external stores, full internal fuel, my Su25 will fly level, hands off, at 400-450km/h. Below that speed it will nose down, above that speed it will nose up. This is a real phenomenon, it is accurate (how accurate to this specific aircraft I really can't comment, though I guess you COULD test it if you were feeling really enthusiastic :P), and if you're going to be cruising at high speed then you just cancel it out with some nose down trim. Changes in weight will require you retrim. Welcome to the exciting world of trimming ;) It is indeed different to the Su25T - probably due to the very different weights of that aircraft, but can't be certain about that.

The Su25 has AFM as well - it's just not such a pig as the Su25T so you might not notice it ;) It will indeed level and trim the aircraft, but it will level and trim for the condition you're flying in. It won't zero all the trim settings, there is no such function in either the real aircraft or the game.

. . . . the Boeing Super Airbrake (aka the Super Compromise) makes a welcome return to draggy infamy on the Lockon forums!

No, you can't reset the trimmers on the AFM aircraft - that could be why he's having trouble ;) Lemme flight test the thing and see if I can work it out . . . . One more note - if you enter the mission in the air, the aircraft will be trimmed for level flight at it's current load. If you're loaded heavily you'll have a lot of nose-up trim which will make itself felt when you drop the stores.

It has no effect on the vertical stabilisers. The Hornet's tailfins are canted outwards slightly - V-tail effects hence apply to them. The lift vector generated by each tailfin with the rudder inwards is perpendicular to the fin, and hence angled just a little bit above the horizontal. The horizontal component of the lift from each fin cancels out so no side thrust (although some drag and yes, some bending moment on the fin), but the vertical components add together and you effectively get a second set of elevators. Not a huge effect, but it does have some effect. Any improvement could be useful in combat.

Yes I do - normally: 1. Nav 2. BVR. 3. WVR/A2G. I only use two modes for the Ka50 at the moment, but then there's no specific A2A avionics modes for that aircraft.

Well, nearly. IIRC, Lomac still has a problem with TOTAL darkness . . . .

Wasn't the Sonic Cruiser Mach 0.9? Transonic, basically . . . . engineering-wise it was a rubbish idea, you got the worst of all possible worlds. Just sounded nice on the marketing :P

Be wary of anything like this . . . . . I note that this mentions flying at supersonic speeds without afterburner - well, Concorde did as well, so that point's straight out of the window . . . . I do recall an article in which a cleverly modified NASA F-5 variant significantly reduced the noise created by it's sonic boom, this would appear to be the next step. Make the VG intakes right and the shockwaves do all the airflow deceleration/compression for you, you can just install a normal engine and it works fine. Olympus was originally a subsonic engine . . . . . When will someone design a working supercritical gas turbine, I wonder? Anyway, the point is that with clever tech you can actually reduce the sonic boom, yes. Whether it's commercially viable at the moment is a completely different question . . . . .

. . . . . the 504th are too busy flying the Su25T to take your call right now, please leave a message and they'll get back to you as soon as they can . . . . . I fly it, it's a seriously fun challenge. You don't half have to pay attention, though . . . . Fly the thing empty and it's character is totally transformed :)

That article (edit - written by you - d'oh!) does say You Haven't tested the Su25 - I'd strongly question the suggestion that that aircraft's best corner speed is 10 knots above stall! As for the Su25T . . . . shrug. There's some data for the fighters out there somewhere, shall see if I can find it again.

duh duh duh duh duh daaahh . . . Highway to the Thunderdome . . . . gonna take it right into the Thunderdome . . . . Or something like that, anyway :P

I have a sneaking suspicion that it does . . . . IIRC, it's something like the thick line is the rate of turn against airspeed line, and the thin line demonstrates the maximum G-load.

Hmmn, not something I'd heard about. Don't tell me - it's something else the UK MoD isn't going to buy in order to save money, right? :P

The Clear Example in question is based on an article of highly dubious accuracy. Actually look into the physics and investigate whether such technology is possible, and what the side-effects are. A single press release does not count as gospel ;)

You're kind of missing the point. The POINT is that the F-22 waltzes into combat with a variety of expensive sensors going, very quietly, as part of a huge integrated system picking up and distributing information. It has an enormous amount of data available to it, can see the enemy long before the enemy can see it, and by the time the AMRAAM goes active you've effectively lost the fight. Sneaking up on a Raptor operated by the Giant USAF War Machine is so unlikely as to be almost impossible. The Typhoon (get the name right :P) does something similar - but the Raptor does it slightly better. Typhoon doesn't have AESA yet, it doesn't have TVC at all, it's not as low an RCS . . . . it'll still have much the same effect as the Raptor on anything currently out there, but in direct competition against a Raptor (god forbid that should ever happen) . . . . it is GOING to lose. No pilot can defeat an enemy that he Just Can't Tell Is There.

PH34R teh Behind Enemy Lines missile-chase-scene!!!!!

Having looked at the basic principles involved, the age of all the aircraft and technologies involved, the development budgets, and the technical know-how involved in making it all . . . . . I must respectfully declare that I believe your opinion to be complete tosh. But hey, that's just my opinion, right? ;) The Plasma Stealth Article has caused oh-so-many little flame wars . . . . it really belongs with the list of articles that claim America lost twenty B52s and five B2s over Serbia, and that Elvis was taken by space aliens . . . . There should be a rule that all discussion of the Raptor on these forums is banned . . . . grin.

The 3D model of the F2.51 model has a hook, sure - however, the code entry for the MiG29K still doesn't, so you can't use it. The AI . . . shrug. The AI don't seem to need it, not sure why.

My understanding is that they used a mishmash of everything. I believe it's technically possible to use the Su33 FM with an F15 cockpit and a Hornet model, and I think that's what they did . . . .